Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DUNDEE CORPORATION (ADMINISTRATION AND GENERAL POWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.

Read the Third time, and passed.

ELECTION EXPENSES

Address for Return,
of the Expenses of each Candidate at the General Election of February, 1950, in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as transmitted to the Returning Officers pursuant to the Representation of the People Act, 1949, and of the number of votes polled by each candidate, the number of polling districts and stations, the number of electors, and the number of persons entitled to vote by post (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 128 of Session 1945–6)."—[Mr. de Freitas.]

BILL PRESENTED

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL

"to provide for regulating crew accommodation in fishing boats and for amending the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1949, with respect to the engagement and discharge of crews, the review of punishments imposed by naval courts, fishing boats engaged in the Newfoundland cod fisheries, and proceedings in summary courts in Northern Ireland; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. Barnes, supported by Mr. McNeil, Mr. Isaacs, Mr. Thomas Williams and Mr. Callaghan; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.[Bill 10]

Orders of the Day — DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES (EXTENSION) BILL

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 24th March.]

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(AMENDMENTS OF 7 & 8 GEO. 6 C. 44.)

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 26, at the end, to add:
Provided that no Order in Council made under the said Act of 1944 in relation to the said Consultative Assembly shall confer any exemption from taxes or rates upon any person who is a British subject and whose usual place of abode is in the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Powell.]

Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."

11.6 a.m.

Mr. Richard Law: I hope that the Committee will not think it impertinent of me to intervene in this Debate when I was not present during the earlier stages of the Bill. Last Friday I had a compelling engagement in my constituency. My main reason for intervening today is that, as the Minister of State will understand from his research, I was closely engaged in this matter six years ago when the original Bill which was the cause of all the trouble came before the House.
There is a curious position in regard to this Amendment. I see on reading the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Debate last week, that there is absolute agreement that the substance of this Amendment is right. There is nobody on either side who would for a moment argue that British subjects who are connected with the Consultative Assembly, and who are normally resident in the United Kingdom, should have tax exemption of any kind. Indeed, the Minister of State has already asserted categorically that he does not dissent at all from the substance of our Amendment. I should like to consider the Minister's argument against the Amendment. It is the familiar one that if in legislation of this kind we fasten on one immunity and put it in the Bill, then by implication we are excluding many other immunities which in fact we intend to keep within the ambit of the Bill. That


is a familiar argument and it is not unsound in itself. It is one which I think every Minister must have used at one time or another, but I believe that it is unsound in the circumstances which we are discussing today.
I have two reasons for saying that. First, the world in which we live is one of extremely heavy, indeed penal, taxation. It is a world, too, of officialdom in which the bureaucracy has multiplied and proliferated to an almost fantastic extent. It is a matter of the first importance that in the kind of world we are in today, of high taxation and widespread bureaucracy, it should be made abundantly clear by Parliament on every possible occasion that officials, as officials, are not a privileged class and do not have exemptions from burdens, or positive privileges, that ordinary subjects of the King do not have.
That is a rule which we cannot keep absolutely and exclusively. There are officials' cars, and though I do not think anybody likes them, they are probably inevitable; officials still have priority on sleeping cars, and so on. I do not think anybody favours that of itself, but it does seem to me that, where we are determined not to give official priority and immunity, we should state so definitely and should lose no opportunity, such as this Amendment gives us, of asserting that the official class is not a privileged class.
There is another reason why I believe that, in these circumstances, the Minister's argument of exclusion is unsound, and it is a reason which I derive from my own experience when the original Bill was passing through the House. At that time, the same objections were made by the House of Commons, and I used precisely the same arguments as the Minister is using now. I said that we had no intention whatever of giving any such immunity from taxation, but that it was unnecessary to put it in the bill. The outcome was very different, because, in fact, we gave way on this point, and when it was found by the Government of the day in 1946 necessary to provide such immunity, new legislation was accordingly introduced to provide for it. The Minister sought to argue—and he very nearly did argue last week—that the fact that this immunity was made necessary

was an argument against the Government of the day having inserted an Amendment of this kind in the Bill of 1944, because he said it had proved in the event to be ineffective. I do not think that that vitiates the argument for the Amendment at all; indeed, I think that, if anything, it supports it.
I am sure that the Minister of State would agree that it is vital that no Minister and none of us here should do anything at all to debase the moral currency, and none of us wants to do so. Ministers should not, therefore, get into the habit of giving categorical pledges which, from circumstances beyond their control, they may not be able to keep in future. In a case of this kind it is far better to put the matter into the Bill, so that all can see that it is there. It does express the intention and will of the House of Commons, and it is far better to have it in the Bill, even at the cost of some future inconvenience. Whatever embarrassment the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power, who was Minister of State in 1946, may have encountered as a result of the Clause in the Bill limiting his powers in this respect, I think he would have found equal embarrassment from the pledge given by his predecessor as Minister of State.
I suggest to the Minister that his objection to this Amendment, the purpose of which he supports, is in some ways unreal, and that he would lose nothing, but might rather gain very much, if he could see his way to accept it.

The Minister of State (Mr. Younger): I am very grateful for the reasoned way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Law) has put the case this morning. It is, however, an instance of the poacher turned gamekeeper, because he suggested that I have been meeting the same kind of difficulties which he himself encountered in 1944. From one point of view, I thought that his argument showed a slight misunderstanding. He said that, now that there are so many officials and now that taxation is so heavy, and, therefore, exemption from it is such a very great privilege, we need to be particularly careful to ensure that officials, as officials, do not enjoy unnecessarily privileges that are not available to the ordinary citizen. I would accept that argument in general, though I am not sure how far it applies


to the Amendment. Unless I have misunderstood it, what the Amendment really aims to do is not to cover the possible granting to officials of immunity from taxation, but to cover the possible granting of immunity from taxation to unofficial representatives attending the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe.
11.15 a.m.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the proviso in the 1944 Act. The reason why it was found impossible to retain that provision in the 1946 legislation was that there are, of course, occasions when exemptions of this kind should properly be granted to officials who may be living abroad and working for an international organisation. It is one of the great problems of international organisations, whose staffs are recruited from the nationals of many countries, to find some way in which their salaries and remuneration can be equalised, so that people holding equal posts receive equal remuneration, no matter whether they are nationals of France, the United States or Great Britain. The only way in which that can be done is by some international arrangement whereby their salaries are exempted from national taxation. This is not a matter peculiar to officials serving the Council of Europe, but applies to any who are involved in international organisations, and it is one which also occurs in the sphere of the United Nations.
I have been thinking this matter over very carefully since last week, because I am anxious to meet the wishes of the Committee if I possibly can. I cannot accept this Amendment for a number of reasons of a drafting character. For instance, since the Committee did not accept the earlier Amendment discussed last week, which mentioned specifically the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, as the Bill now stands there is no reference to the Consultative Assembly in it, and, therefore, the phraseology "the said Consultative Assembly" in this Amendment would not really make sense. That is a matter of drafting.
Then there is the other objection, to which I still adhere, though I appreciate the arguments put up against it by the right hon. Gentleman, that it is not very satisfactory to single out an exemption in relation to rates and taxes and not to refer to any other. It seems to me that

there is a much more satisfactory way of dealing with this matter, and a way which I should like to explore further, to see if I can find an appropriate form of words and to insert an Amendment in the Bill in another place. That would be to introduce a proviso limiting the privileges and immunities which can be granted, not only in respect of this one organisation but also in respect of any others covered by the Bill at present or in the future, to what is required for the implementing of our international agreements.
I have given an assurance that we do not intend, in fact, to grant, in respect of any organisation, any greater privileges than those which have been the subject of international agreement in respect of which there has been a measure of reciprocity. I have given that quite categorically, and I do not myself see any disadvantage, indeed, I see some advantages, in incorporating that in the Bill. That would have the advantage that it would cover, not only questions of immunity from rates and taxes, but also any other immunities, and not only the Council of Europe, and, in particular, the Consultative Assembly, but also any other organisations which might conceivably be involved. If any other organisations should be involved at some future date, the privileges in relation to their staffs could only be covered by Order in Council giving privileges and immunities sufficient only to cover the international agreements which we have made.
I hope that suggestion will be acceptable to the right hon. Gentleman. I will undertake to go into it very carefully. I have not got a form of words to cover it at the moment, but I do not see any reason why we should not find a form of words. Provided that we do, it could be inserted in another place, and I have no doubt that this House would agree to it. I put that forward to the right hon. Gentleman and suggest on that understanding he might be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: The Minister of State is in a much more amenable frame of mind than he was last week. I wish to ask him a question on immunity from tax. He told the Committee last week that the phrases which referred to immunity from tax were included in the 1944 Act, and that


it was because that proved impossible to operate satisfactorily they were not reproduced in the 1946 Act. I should like to know if any specific case has arisen by which any individual covered by the 1944 Act has actually claimed immunity from tax or any other privilege of that nature under the 1946 Act and some question has arisen as to whether or not he is entitled to that immunity?

Mr. Younger: I am afraid that I have not the exact details with me, but I believe it concerned the permanent staff of one of the European organizations—it might have been O.E.E.C.—which included British subjects normally considered as resident here but actually stationed in France. I was assured that an instance had arisen in respect not of a British representative simply going to any of these bodies, but of one of the permanent staff which was contributed from this country to the international organisation.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It cannot be denied that the proposition of the Minister of State might very materially alter many of the objections which I and other of my hon. Friends have felt to the Bill as it is at present drafted. A point which I should like to make is that the principle that he now suggests is a different one from that upon which the present Bill and the Acts of 1944 and 1946 were drafted. It is a difference of principle in the approach to the problem. The 1944 and 1946 Acts and this Bill have gone on the lines of giving wide powers for the production of Orders in Council and erecting as it were ceilings on immunities and privileges far higher than were intended to be attained under current international obligations. If the Minister of State now proposes that Parliament should merely give power under Orders in Council to fulfil our international obligations in this respect from time to time, I wonder whether it would not be more convenient and more appropriate if that were done in the form of a new Bill since it appears to me that the whole principle of his approach is changed.

Mr. Law: It would certainly be ungracious on our part if we did not respond in kind to the concession which the Minister of State has announced. In a moment leave will be asked to withdraw the Amendment. I should just like to reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I hope that if, on reflection, the Government discover that the concession has the wider implications suggested by my hon. Friend, they will not shrink if necessary from withdrawing the Bill and introducing another one.

Mr. Powell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for raising further money for the development of the postal, telegraphic and telephonic systems and the repayment to the Post Office Fund of money applied thereout for such development, it is expedient—

(i) to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums, not exceeding in the whole seventy-five million pounds, as may be required for the purposes of such development or of such repayment;
(ii) to authorise the Treasury to borrow, by means of terminable annuities, for the purpose of providing money for sums so authorised to be issued, or for repaying to the Consolidated Fund all or any part of the sums so issued, and to authorise payment into the Exchequer of any sums so borrowed;
(iii) to provide for the repayment of such terminable annuities out of moneys provided by Parliament for the service of the Post Office, or, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund."

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(GRANT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF POSTAL, TELEGRAPHIC AND TELEPHONIC SYSTEMS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

11.27 p.m.

Sir David Robertson: The Clause provides for a sum not exceeding £75 million, and on Second Reading the Postmaster-General told the House that £40 million of that was to be spent in the current year upon improving the telephone service and particularly for getting rid of the waiting list. He also referred to £300 million which would be required to bring the telephone service into a state of efficiency. I think that huge figure almost stunned the House. It certainly had that effect on me. I have been considering this matter since the Second Reading and it seems to me that if that is the cost that Britain has to pay to get rid of the waiting list for telephones, she cannot afford it.
I believe that the telephone service has reached a stage which is not uncommon in many other Government Departments. They are living in the very unreal world which has existed since 1939. During the war we had to provide telephones for defence purposes all over the country. The cost of that did not matter. Saving sixpences when civilisation was at stake was of no importance. However, that bred extravagance, which I acknowledge and with which I do not find fault. The situation continued throughout the war. In the post-war period we have had a sellers' market. We have had to get goods at all costs, including telephones, and from my own experience in the businesses with which I am connected, I know that the telephone department is conducted extravagantly.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ness Edwards): Oh!

Sir D. Robertson: The Postmaster-General says, "Oh," but I will give him an instance. I wanted an extension taken from one point in my room to another because there was a draught. I filled in

the forms and made the application, and an official came to survey exactly what had to be done as the result of the movement of my chair from one side of my room to the other, and made a plan. Some days later three men arrived to carry out the work of moving an extension from one side of a small room to another. This is gross extravagance. If that type of thing is going on throughout the service, no wonder we are being called upon to pay millions. I draw the attention of the Committee to the £300 million for telephones to get rid of a waiting list during eight years.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): It is not only to get rid of a waiting list, but also to provide for new trunk lines. That was emphasised on Second Reading.

Sir D. Robertson: I agree, but I wonder whether these trunk lines are going to be so congested in future as they were during the war and during the immediate post-war period. I suggest that the situation has greatly improved. We all had to wait a long time for trunk calls a few years ago. Now, on most occasions, I can get a call through to the North of Scotland in a matter of minutes, and I think that experience is general.
I ask the Postmaster-General to give serious consideration to the present situation. The sellers' market is passing, and we are meeting sales resistance everywhere. This getting of everything at all costs can no longer continue. When we talk about £300 million, in addition to other millions already sunk in the telephone service, I wonder how that compares with the capital of the Bell Telephone Company in the United States. I do not know what that figure is, but it would be worth looking into.
Let me tell the Committee of a greater extravagance. There are 356 motor vehicles to transport 304 constructional men about the Aberdeen area, which is 99 per cent. outside Aberdeen and includes Orkney and Shetland. These 304 men are being transported about the countryside.

The Deputy-Chairman: I draw the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that Clause I deals with £75 million and he is going beyond that.

Sir D. Robertson: I am not going beyond it, it is the Postmaster-General who wants £300 million.

The Deputy-Chairman: My point is that this Clause only wants £75 million.

Sir D. Robertson: Quite so; I apologise. Of course, the expenditure I am referring to is included in the £75 million, and therefore I submit that I am in order. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. This money is to be found for existing services.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that it is not. It is for future expenditure.

Sir D. Robertson: Clause 1 says:
… or for repaying to the Post Office Fund any moneys …
already spent. I submit, Sir Charles, with great respect, that I am wholly in order.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not agree. This is for capital development.

Sir D. Robertson: I accept your Ruling, Sir Charles, of course, but does it mean that on this money Clause I cannot refer to the extravagance prevailing in the telephone service today?

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, I think that question is going beyond the Clause.

Sir D. Robertson: The Clause is to provide money for this service and I wish to refer to that in my speech.

The Deputy-Chairman: That speech might be attempted on Third Reading.

Sir D. Robertson: I have taken advice on this. I was told that Clause 1 on the Committee stage would be the proper time to raise this matter; Third Reading would be too narrow.

The Deputy-Chairman: Very likely it will be. We must wait and see.

Mr. R. V. Grimston: I should like to ask for your guidance again on this, Sir Charles. The last few words of Clause 1 (1) refer to repayment to the Post Office Fund of any moneys which may have been used for the purpose of development. Would it not be in order, therefore, to refer to work which has been done extravagantly in the past and to which must be applied money raised under the Bill?.

The Deputy-Chairman: It might be in order on Second Reading, but now we are dealing only with the Clause.

Sir D. Robertson: If that is so, I must bring my remarks to a close with this very definite repetition that the Postmaster-General must give consideration to the fact that a sum of millions of pounds is being asked for by the telephone service in 1950. If I had the honour of holding his high office, the first thing I should undertake would be an economy drive to stop extravagance.

Mr. George Thomas: I hope my right hon. Friend is not going to pay undue heed to the demands of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), because the telephone service is perhaps one of the most vital parts of our commercial and industrial life. In the City of Cardiff, the Post Office has embarked upon the establishment of the largest telephone unit in the United Kingdom. I do not know what this is costing, but I do know that if this money is spent, it is going to be a boon and a blessing to industrial and commercial life in South Wales. The telephone service is possibly one of the best paying propositions of the Post Office. My right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong.

Mr. Hobson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Thomas: I am wrong, am I? In that case I suggest to my right hon. Friend that by spending a little more, he might find it is the best way to increase profits from this service. But the most important point is that this money shall provide an efficient service for industry and commerce.

Sir William Darling: I should like to take part in this discussion if for no other reason than one of curiosity. As the Committee is aware, there were very great extensions to the telephone service throughout the United Kingdom during the war. The ordinary commercial services were proved to be quite inadequate for the demands of Government Departments, the military, and air-raid precautions services. I was a District Commissioner for Civil Defence and I am aware of the enormous developments that took place through that period. It was far more than we had hitherto found necessary in normal peacetime.
I hope it is relevant to Clause 1 for me to say that after this monumental expense, none of which has deteriorated like ordinary war stores, we are now required to provide as much as an additional £75 million in peace-time. Many of the things that we established in wartime, such as air-raid shelters and protection of that kind, are now obsolescent, but, with respect to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), we had in 1939 a telephone service which was adequate for the normal needs of the community. Now we have a great deal of the additional equipment installed during the war still in commission, yet on top of that the Postmaster-General calls for another £75 million.
The Postmaster-General's duty should be to review his existing equipment and bring it into efficient running order. The Postmaster-General is in the hands of a group of highly competent and highly skilled technicians who are running away with this Government machine and spending capital which no prudent private undertaking would spend. He has a simplicity and an urbanity about him, but still one would not expect him to be a victim of this group of men who, quite naturally, are looking for better and wider careers. I ask the Postmaster-General to consider whether the commercial needs of the community demand the expenditure of £75 million on the existing well-established, efficient telephone service supplemented by the additions during the war that I have mentioned. That is what the Postmaster-General has to justify. Has he got an efficient service? Does he need to increase it to this extent? What lies behind these subtle words:
… for raising further money … for developing … postal, telegraphic and telephonic systems …"?
I suggest that this is an extension of a Government monopoly which is not too well managed and which is very expensively administered, as I understand it.

Mr. H. Hynd: I did not intend to intervene, but I am more and more puzzled as this Debate goes on. What do the critics on the opposite benches want? Do they want an extension or a restriction of the telephone service? On the one hand, we are told that the telephone department is

extravagant, the implication being that we should restrict its expenditure; and on the other hand we are badgered by hon. Members opposite and told that there must be more rapid expansion of the telephone service. I hope that before this discussion comes to a close, some hon. Member opposite will explain what the Opposition want.

Mr. R. V. Grimston: I should like to raise two points which I think are in order. My first point concerns this capital expenditure. Many of us have been somewhat surprised at the figure which the right hon. Gentleman quoted during the Second Reading Debate of £300 million, the sum of £75 million being part of it. It seemed that the capital cost per telephone application was extremely high. During the Second Reading Debate and in response to an interjection of mine, the Assistant Postmaster-General said that this capital expenditure of £75 million plus the rest related not only to the applications which are at present before the Post Office but to a number of applications which might still come in, which number must be purely conjectural, and related also to the laying down of fresh trunk lines, the building of new telephone exchanges and so on.
It is, therefore, extremely difficult to arrive at the capital cost per application. However, I think that we ought to try to arrive at some figure, because the figure which was worked out by the Assistant Postmaster - General sounded quite fantastic. If that was the figure, there would never be any hope of paying the interest charges on the capital outlay. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should go into this question and try to get some sort of approximate figure of the real cost per application. There must be a figure, and it would be interesting to know what it is. I realise the difficulties and the many different questions which have to be considered, but I think that on some occasion, perhaps if we put down a Question a little later on, the right hon. Gentleman might see whether he can give us some figure.
It has been laid down in the Financial Memorandum that the money is to be expended at the rate, roughly, of £40 million per annum, the larger proportion of that to be devoted to the provision of new telephone equipment. The Bill does


not lay down any mandatory speed for spending the money. The Postmaster-General may either accelerate or retard the capital expenditure. He will have to come to the House again to ask for more money. In spite of the fact that £50 million worth of telephone equipment is going to the export trade, I have been told that some of the manufacturers of this apparatus are beginning to be short of work and that in some cases it will not be long before short time is worked in some of these factories unless the Post Office does something about it.
Could the Postmaster-General tell us anything about that? As I say, I have heard it, I do not say whether what I have heard is correct or not, but I have heard it from a source which prompts me to inquire whether that is likely to be the situation. I should like to know whether the Postmaster-General intends to increase the orders from the Post Office so as to obviate short time and possibly unemployment in this industry. I think he will agree that it is necessary that this industry should be kept in good condition. It is a tremendous war potential and it must be kept in a condition so that it could expand quickly in time of war. Has the Postmaster-General considered this matter, and if so, what does he intend to do?

11.45 a.m.

Mr. Daines: Surely the hon. Gentleman's argument is a plea for increased expenditure. How does he square that with the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson)?

Mr. Grimston: I am not asking for anything. I am referring to a situation which I am told is likely to develop, and I am asking the Postmaster-General, who is responsible, what he is going to do about it. I take no responsibility in the matter. It may be a very difficult situation, and I am asking the Postmaster-General whether he thinks the danger which I foresee is apparent, and if so, what he intends to do about it.
The other point I want to raise relates to telegraphs. A good deal of capital expenditure has been sunk in the telegraph system. A switching system has been introduced, and it seems to me that

anything that can be done to get traffic on the telegraph system in return for this capital expenditure is a point which must be pursued. We were told in the Second Reading Debate that the greetings telegram service could not be restored because of the cost of delivery. It has to be done by junior postmen.
I have a suggestion to make, and I should be glad if the Postmaster-General would consider it. This service was very popular. In fact, the Assistant Postmaster-General himself said that it was a service which the public liked very much. Would it not be possible to accept greetings telegrams for delivery by the first post next morning? Anybody who wants to send a greeting for any purpose, such as a wedding or a birthday, should be able to go into a post office and send his telegram with the knowledge that it will be delivered by the first post the following morning.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is going very wide in discussing greetings telegrams on Clause 1.

Mr. Grimston: This was discussed in the Second Reading Debate, and this is a point arising out of that discussion. Of course, if you so rule, Sir Charles, I cannot go any further into the matter, and I bow to your Ruling, but I would submit that this point was raised on the Second Reading. I was putting the suggestion to the Postmaster-General and asking him to consider it.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" can only deal with what is in the Clause.

Mr. Grimston: I must bow to your Ruling, of course, but I think the Postmaster-General heard what I said, and I hope that at some time, he will be able to give us the information for which we have asked.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ness Edwards): The discussion which has taken place on this Clause indicates a sort of split-mind attitude to this problem on the part of hon. Members opposite. I am repeatedly pressed by the opposition, and also by some of my hon. Friends, to provide more and more telephones. An efficient telephone system in this country is vital to our economic


success, but what we have been attempting to do, as far as I can see, is to apply to a grown man a suit which was made for a small boy. That is the reason why there is this demand for so much capital expenditure in order to try to put the telephone service in a position to meet the needs of the community.
I think the Opposition should make up their minds either to let me have this money, so that I may do what I can to supply the need for telephones, or to remove the pressure on me to supply telephones to the half-million people in this country who want them. Either we must have increased capital expenditure to meet the demand or hon. Members opposite must try to size up the demand for capital expenditure with the policies they advocate.

Mr. R. V. Grimston: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are not denying him this money which he requires for capital expenditure because, as I said at the outset, we do not intend to oppose this Bill. What we have been trying to do is to give constructive suggestions whereby the money can be laid out in order to produce maximum results. That is the point.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I appreciate that point, but when the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), attacks even the granting of this sum, it does not seem that he is speaking with the same voice as the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. R. V. Grimston).

Sir W. Darling: rose—

Mr. Ness Edwards: I cannot give way for a moment. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South said he spoke from curiosity. I thought it was a peculiar speech to make. Had he carried his curiosity further and examined the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum on the face of the Bill, he would have found that the point about which he spoke was dealt with there. We have absorbed into the Post Office system £23 million worth of capital expenditure which was undertaken on facilities for civil defence and general defence during the war.
I want next to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson). I can assure him that there is not an extravagant use of money in the Post

Office. I have looked at the complaint he made, before he made it in this House, because he previously made it to me in writing. The area in which the hon. Member lives has a very sparse population. Post Office workers must live in houses where houses are available. If we are not to house them in Aberdeen it means that he will get an even worse development of telephone services in his area than he has now. The housing problem and the sparsity of the population are two of the difficulties which we face in the part of Scotland which he represents.
There are one or two other points with which I want to deal, and the first is in regard to the capital cost per application. That is an extremely difficult figure to work out. I believe the hon. Member for Westbury looked at this problem when he himself was at the Post Office. When considering the amount of capital required to instal the telephone service, one has to take into account the capital cost of building, the capital cost of cables—the most modern cable and not the old-fashioned cable—and the most modern form of automatic switching equipment, so as to get rid of some of the delays about which there have been complaints in relation to the manual switching equipment.
What we want in this country, very largely, is a completely re-cast telephone service in order to meet the modern need for telephones. We can never estimate what the cost of labour will be, what the cost of new building will be, how soon we shall get the automatic switching gear, and all those things involving very expert calculations, but the people whose advice the hon. Member accepted when he was in office have assured me—and I have taken their advice—that it would require the sum I mentioned in the previous Debate.
We are asking for £75 million for the next two years. I think it is a very modest sum to seek in view of the very great need. It means that we shall not satisfy the demand for telephones for some time to come. In order to meet that demand we should need much more money. I know the resistance on both sides of the House to high Government expenditure and one has to balance what the nation can afford with the needs of the community.
Another point raised was the fact that there is in some parts of the telephone instrument industry a growing difficulty about getting rid of their products. There are, however, still very substantial markets overseas. I think I should be right to tell the Committee that the help I can give to the telephone industry, and especially those parts of it now feeling a bit of the economic draught, is limited by the amount of capital expenditure which this House votes for me and by the amount the nation can afford. The vital part of the telephone instrument industry in which the Post Office is concerned and in which there is the greatest shortage is that dealing with this automatic switching equipment. Apparently here there is no great surplus.
There is no difficulty in supply with regard to hand instruments and things of that sort; I understand they can be turned out very easily and that the industry could supply us with a greater number than is now being supplied. But it is no use getting the hand and exchange instruments unless we can get the automatic switching gear, and it is no use getting the switching gear unless we can complete the construction of the new exchanges—which brings us back again to the building labour force. Unless we can get on with the building it is no use buying these things to put them in store, simply in order to keep people in employment when those people might be diverted to the building side. I ask the Committee to let us have this Clause and to let us have the £75 million in order to make a start on the job.

Mr. John Foster: I want to add my plea that the money should be wisely spent. There are one or two small things in the telephone service to which I think, a slight diversion of the capital expenditure could be made. In most countries they allow a longer flex for the telephone instrument than is allowed in England; England is the only country in the world where the flex is so short—a very few feet. I have an idea that if a longer flex were allowed it would lessen the need for extensions. In America, for instance, one can have an instrument round one's neck and plug it in in various rooms. There is another system in France altogether; in France they provide a flex which is really long—

30 to 40 feet—which one can wind up the stairs and take into the rooms upstairs. If the right hon. Gentleman would spend money on buying longer flex I believe that would be an assistance. In addition, I wonder if he would spend money on giving operators some sort of a number. In America we find—

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think the hon. Member was here when I gave my previous Ruling. He cannot discuss that point on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Foster: I am trying to urge the right hon. Gentleman to spend sums of money on giving operators a number and I thought that was in Order.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not in Order.

Mr. Shurmer: I do not know whether I shall be in Order in asking the Postmaster-General a question about party lines in the telephone service. I spent many years in the telephone service before the Conservative Party got me the sack in 1926 because of a speech I made. These party lines give people an opportunity to share a telephone. The question I want to ask is whether there is any chance of exemptions being allowed to certain people in the policy of compelling them to accept party lines. The point is that members of the Birmingham City Council—there are two members—

12 noon.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have stopped hon. Members before from going so widely.

Mr. James Hudson: I am sorry you Rule so strictly, Sir Charles, but I must observe your Ruling.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am only carrying out the Rules of Order.

Mr. Hudson: I only know that now I cannot refer to more flex for the Opposition. I wanted to support their plea for flex, for I should like to give them all the flex possible. They have taken enough rope today—

Mr. Shurmer: To hang themselves.

Mr. Hudson: —in this discussion to hang themselves a good many times. I support the Postmaster-General. I think


it is necessary for someone on these benches, from which have come some of the demands pressing the Post Office into considerable extension of expenditure, to support my right hon. Friend when he proposes to make such an extension. I have heard with resentment hon. Gentlemen opposite calling for a cut in the capital expenditure on these necessary developments. I make my protest the more vigorously because they set themselves up as the special friends of commercial enterprise and expansion. If anyone should be glad at such proposals as those that are now before the Committee, hon. Members opposite should be. Although the flex may not be given to them, at any rate they have provided rope themselves, and we shall use it with great advantage when we speak about these things in the country.

Sir D. Robertson: There seems to be some misapprehension among hon. Members opposite, and particularly on the part of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), about what it is we desire. We desire to give the Postmaster-General his Bill and to help him in every possible way; and we want our constituents to have the telephones which they have been wanting for years, and particularly the farmers in the far north; but we want it done economically.
In the speech I made just now, I was drawing the attention of the Postmaster-General to the fact, which, I think, he acknowledges, that since 1939 we have been living in abnormal times. I excuse the extravagance of the war because it was justifiable, and I can understand some of the extravagance of the immediate post-war days when there was a sellers' market, but I warn the Committee today—I think it is my duty to do so—that this passion for getting goods at any price, including telephones, cannot any longer continue. We can afford only the things we can pay for. I am simply sounding a note of caution today, and that is all my hon. Friends are doing, too.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. A. Edward Davies: This Clause, according to the Financial Memorandum,
… simplifies and modernises the accounting enactments relating to the services of the Post Office.
It refers to the trading accounts of the telephone and telegraph services. I take it that it has some concern with the manner in which the Post Office shall bring to the notice of the House or of the authorities its transactions during the year. I want to ask whether it deals also with the presenting of more coherent statements of accounts to the public—more intelligible telephone bills, for instance.
From my own experience, and from the experience of my friends, I know that it is a challenge to the imagination to undo the Chinese puzzle of a telephone account. I challenge any ordinary man receiving one of those accounts, especially for the first time, to understand what it is all about without making inquiry. I am not speaking of the general service which the Post Office renders. I have no complaints about that. I think the Post Office does an excellent job. However, I ask the Postmaster-General to tell us whether this matter is being looked into, so that our telephone accounts may be simpler and more intelligible.

Sir W. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman commented on my lack of financial capacity to appreciate the Financial Memorandum; but, believe me, Sir Charles, I am still anxious to learn anything I can in that field, if my knowledge is deficient. My curiosity is also provoked by Clause 2. If I may read out part of it, I shall, I hope, preserve the Rules of Order strictly and yet make a very surprising statement. What I shall read will surprise the Postmaster-General, too.
No account or statement—
Clause 2 says—
…. shall be required to be prepared or audited.
It is the City's prayer. Every City man would love to be in such a position and not be required to prepare or have audited accounts or statements. Is that, however, the position for a reckless, extravagant Postmaster-General—

Mr. Ness Edwards: Read on.

Sir W. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman asks me to read on. I am content to read as far as I have gone. What the Postmaster-General asks in solemn words is that he shall be free from the restraints and limitations put upon, for instance, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. J. Lewis) and me, and from which he and I have to suffer in our ordinary business. The right hon. Gentleman says that no account or statement shall be prepared or audited. What a gift. What was wrong with the former system of accounting and auditing? I have no doubt that it disclosed things that the Postmaster-General and his predecessors did not want the public to know. Like any other person financially embarrassed, he proposes to pull down a screen, to substitute another method of accounting, or otherwise to avoid it altogether. I get no information—at least, of an encouraging character—from the Financial Memorandum, which says,
Clause 2 of the Bill simplifies and modernises the accounting …. of the Post Office.
What lovely words. How many balance sheets could be improved in the interest of those who produce them if they could be simplified and modernised. I am not sure that these words do not contain something very subtle. What was wrong with the system of accountancy that so long prevailed in the Post Office? Is it in the public interest to change it? Is the change, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies) wanted, going to give greater clarity in the accounts, and help the understanding of the public? That is what I want to know. Clause 2 gives me no encouragement to think so. On the contrary, something apparently is to be suppressed, something is to be concealed, something is not to be disclosed, and instead of accounts giving disclosure, we are apparently to have a system of "iron curtain" accounting. I think the Postmaster-General must explain this matter and explain it in detail, and I look forward to the ingenious way the explanation will be given.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I think the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) has certainly maintained, if not enhanced, his reputation, for he has certainly given us great entertainment. I regret that his curiosity did not take him a little further down the Clause—but

there it is. He has shown us in this Committee—not for the first time in this Chamber—that he has his own way of dealing with problems that he wants to make obscure.
The position is simply that in 1939 the Public Accounts Committee gave attention to this problem. The Post Office used to provide its accounts for Parliament in three different ways. In some cases, parts were not audited at all by the Auditor-General. The Public Accounts Committee, having looked at this, in 1939, made a recommendation to the Government of the day that the accounts should now be brought into conformity with the general accounts that are placed before Parliament, and that they should be subject to the scrutiny of the Auditor-General, and be presented to Parliament in the usual form, so that they would be easily understood by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, and other hon. Members.
That is all there is to it. There is nothing more in it than that. The intention is that all Post Office accounts shall be audited by the Auditor-General and shall be reported to Parliament in common form. This Clause has been drafted in conjunction with the Treasury, the Auditor-General, and the Public Accounts Committee. In view of all these safeguards and scrutinies, I think that the hon. Gentleman can be pleased with what we are doing.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), I appreciate his point of view, and although it may, strictly speaking, be out of order to say so, I can give him the assurance that the annual report will be made available.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I want to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for the helpful contributions that have been made in the course


of the Debates. I thought that we might have had the Bill sooner in view of the clamorous demand for the services which it provides. I am grateful, however, for the way in which the House has treated it, and I shall endeavour to try to redeem some of the promises which I have made.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Mossley, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th March, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Norton a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th March, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Ormskirk, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th March, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Potters Bar, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th March, be approved."—[Mr. de Freitas.]

Orders of the Day — AIRCRAFT, HONG KONG (DISPOSAL)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Sparks.]

12.13 p.m.

Air-Commodore Harvey: In raising this matter relating to the 71 aircraft now located at Kai Tak airport, Hong Kong, which have been handed over to the People's Government of China, I do so in the hope that what I have to say will be restrained, because I have no desire to say anything to make the situation, which is already complicated, more difficult than it is at the moment. The only

reason I am raising this matter is that a considerable proportion of the equipment has already been shipped away to the People's Government of China.
I asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies some two weeks ago about this matter, and I was not satisfied with the reply. The Question and answer were fully reported in the "Hong Kong Telegraph" on 18th March. Had this been a British newspaper in this country, I believe—because I have taken advice—that it might have been a question of breach of privilege. I do not propose to make a point of that, because I think that one should not be over-sensitive about these matters, and that it might be of embarrassment to the Chair. For the sake of record, I will quote what the report says:
Air-Commodore Harvey may have been the unsuspecting victim of high-pressure lobbying, for it is no secret that strenuous efforts have been made to bring influence to bear on Whitehall to interfere with what the British Constitutions holds most sacred—the rule of law.
I agree that the decisions of the judges of this country and of the British Colonies are final, so far as that goes. I wish to assure the House, however, that I have not been guilty of receiving high-pressure lobbying, and I have no interest in this matter whatever except with regard to the points at issue, although perhaps I should tell the House that I worked in an aviation business in China for a good many years, but that was a long time ago.
On 9th November last year, nine aircraft belonging to the China National Aircraft Corporation and two belonging to the China Air Transport Corporation had cleared the Customs at Hong Kong for Nationalist territory, presumably for the Island of Formosa, but the two managing directors who were part of the crew, or passengers, had a deep-laid plot. They did not go to Formosa but went in the opposite direction to the People's Government at Peking. In fact, they flew to the other side. The aircraft arrived in fact at Peking, but there remained on the ground at Kai Tak 71 modern aircraft—Skymasters and numerous others—which I contend are potential war equipment. It is no good saying that because an airliner is now a passenger aircraft that it is not potential war equipment. It can be modified to carry bombs, or it can be used to drop paratroops, and for many other purposes in war.
Following that incident, on 17th November, the Chinese Nationalist Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Yeh, interviewed the Governor of Hong Kong—I imagine for guidance—and asked for the protection of the assets which he rightly believed belonged to his Government. That was part of the holding owned by General Chennault, the man who flew with the airlift in the Far East during the war, who had bought 20 per cent. of the holding belonging to the Pan American Airways Corporation.
The Nationalist Government Minister of Communications, presumably in Formosa, grounded the 71 remaining aircraft. I presume that they had been grounded because they were not in a condition to fly because of lack of servicing. He informed the Director of Civil Aviation at Hong Kong of his action and the aircraft registrations were suspended. To all intents and purposes, these aircraft ought not to be moved. The Peking Government then, as I understand it, informed the Hong Kong Government that they would hold the local Government in the Colony responsible for the property because it was guarded by their loyal subjects. I never knew that there was any such thing as loyalty in the Communist Party.

Mr. George Thomas: We may disagree with them, but they are loyal.

Air-Commodore Harvey: They are loyal when it suits them. The local representatives of C.N.A.C. requested the Deputy-Director of Civil Aviation at Hong Kong to cancel the passes of the defectionists on the airfield. He thought that the right thing to do was to keep these men off the airfield, and that that would simplify the problem enormously. The Director of Civil Aviation said that he had no instructions from higher authority to carry that out, and that it would be difficult to recall the passes because they were not regularly inspected, and he had not sufficient staff to do so. C.N.A.C.'s representative saw a senior official of the Government and requested guidance. They were in some difficulty to know what to do in this matter. They were referred to the Attorney-General, whom they saw in the presence of the Commissioner of Police.
Everyone quite rightly wanted to avoid making the trouble worse than it was. I understand that they were told that if a court order was obtained it would be implemented. It never was. The two Corporations concerned instituted proceedings against certain of the leading defectionists for trespass on and damage to what they considered to be their rightful property. The defendants then obtained an order restraining the plaintiffs from removing the property. There was switching backwards and forwards, with advertisements in the local Press, both sides claiming the property and trying to get the better of the other. The question of the passes at the airport was again taken up, because that was felt to be the crux of the problem, but the assistance asked for was not forthcoming. The Director of Civil Aviation was again interviewed, but he said that he had not the machinery to withdraw the passes.
On 20th December representatives of Civil Air Transport Incorporated—that is the new company formed to take over the assets of the two air corporations in China—informed the C.N.A.C. solicitors that they had purchased the assets of the two companies, and they naturally claimed possession of the property. The officials of C.N.A.C. and C.A.T.C. were appointed by the Nationalist Government and General Chennault and Mr. Willaner, and they were quite willing that the new company should have possession of the assets, to clarify the difficult position. But a body of men who claimed that they owned the company again advertised in the local papers on 1st December that they had severed their connection with C.N.A.C. and C.A.T.C., and that they remained in possession of the assets, with their passes to the airport.
As I see it, the point is that the People's Government of China was recognised by Britain on 6th January, 1950, and then claimed that the defectionists at Hong Kong on the airport, or other persons, were holding assets on their behalf. They claimed that they were immune from the jurisdiction of the courts—which may be right legally. On 15th March, a short time ago—and this is my main point—5,777, cases of aircraft engines and air frame parts, valued at about three million dollars, were shipped from Hong Kong in a British steamer. There were enough parts there to main-


tain these aeroplanes for something like two years.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Where were they shipped to?

Air-Commodore Harvey: Tsingtao, in North China. It was reported in a local paper which was sent to me that the ship in question was trailed by a Nationalist destroyer and a British destroyer. Whether it has ever arrived at its destination, I do not know. In the meantime, the new company applied for an injunction and a summons for preservation of the assets, but this was refused by the Chief Justice in Hong Kong last Tuesday. I have no doubt that the Chief Justice was quite right legally, but my contention is that all the procrastination which led up to this refusal to withdraw the passes, and so on, has led to a situation in which a judge has had to make this very important decision. What will happen now that all this equipment has gone out? It seems extraordinary that when we are accepting aid from our friends in the United States we should be handing over equipment in this way.
I would not mind if the People's Government of China had responded to the recognition which this country gave them, but instead of that we are being insulted almost daily; the British people in Shanghai have had heavy fines levied on them week after week, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) pointed out in the House this week. It strikes me that this matter has been handled in a most extraordinary way. I feel that the various departments in Hong Kong have carried out their duties in a negative manner.
When I asked that a commission should go out to Hong Kong to investigate this matter, I intended no slight on the legal authorities in the Colony; I only wanted some action taken to see that this valuable equipment did not get into the hands of the Communists because, firstly, I do not think that would be a good thing, and secondly I do not think it belongs to them. Had the equipment been moved in time—it probably could not have been, for various reasons—they would not have got it. It was only because the Communists were recognised by the British Government on 6th January that they are in the fortunate position of holding this equipment.
I do not want to add to the difficulties of the situation, but I should like an assurance from the Minister of State for the Colonies that something will be done to prevent this equipment leaving, because I think it highly dangerous that it should leave, and I hope that action will be taken even at this late hour.

12.25 p.m.

Major Tufton Beamish: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) has done well to raise this matter, as he has done with both moderation and restraint. I am sure the Government will appreciate the difficulty of this situation. I want, not exactly to expand on the background of the case, which was largely dealt with by my hon. and gallant Friend, but, as the Rules are wide on an Adjournment Debate, to look at the question of these 71 planes and the spare parts and stores against the wider picture of the political and military situation in the Far East.
The latest information that I have been able to obtain about these 71 planes was in the "Daily Telegraph," contained in a report from Hong Kong sent on Wednesday, I feel that it might be useful to hon. Members, who cannot be fully in touch, if I read this short report to show the present situation. It says:
Mr. E. H. Williams, Acting Chief Justice of Hong Kong, yesterday dismissed an application by the American-registered company Civil Air Transport Inc., seeking an injunction to prevent the Peking-controlled China National Aviation Corporation and the Central Air Transport Corporation from removing 71 grounded planes and other assets from the colony.
Civil Air Transport is operated by Gen. Chennault, the former commander of the 'Flying Tigers' volunteer air force in China. Control of the 71 aircraft was given to the Peking Government under a recent Supreme Court decision. Gen. Chennault, who claimed them, said he had purchased them from their former Nationalist owners.
The planes are still intact at Kaitak airfield, on the outskirts of Kowloon, opposite Hong Kong island, and no move has been made to get them ready for flying. The Communists have removed some spare parts and miscellaneous equipment by sea"—
my hon. and gallant Friend told us there were nearly 6,000 crates taken away—
but there is no indication that they intend to dismantle the aircraft for shipment.


Then it concludes:
Although Gen. Chennault has indicated that he intends to appeal against the Supreme Court decision, he has not yet taken any legal action.
Therefore the matter is not now sub judice, as he has not made any appeal.
In these circumstances, I should be the last person to criticise the legal decision, as a legal decision, which has recently been taken, and it is no part of my intention to do so. But I do ask the House to look at this question against the broader military and political situation which we see in the Far East. I must add here how much I and most of my hon. Friends hope that an early opportunity will be found to Debate in this House the whole situation in the Far East, and to get some real statement of Government policy—a thing we have not had for five years. I very much hope that that Debate will soon come off, and that we can examine the wider question for a whole day in the House.
The active part that the Far Eastern Cominform is playing in the whole situation in the Far East is not generally recognised, and certainly not by the general public. After all, for five years we have been a major participant in what so many people call the cold war. But in the Far East the war is by no means cold. There is war in Burma, and only today I read in the newspapers that the Communists have achieved startling successes and are now in occupation of Prome, which lies astride the oil pipeline, and that that key town has been lost to the Government. They are apparently achieving considerable military success, and all this time of course the British taxpayers are paying out millions of pounds, as are our Dominions, following on the decision of the Columbo Conference to support the Burmese Government. That is a part of the picture.
Then in Malaya, everybody knows that for two years now very large British forces, Malayan forces and the police have been locked in a deadly battle with the Communists, who of course are inspired and organised by the Far Eastern Cominform. Everyone knows that. Then, of course, the French have had very grave military troubles and are engaged in a war in French Indo-China. Everyone knows how closely connected

with the whole military situation in the Far East is that situation in Indo-China.
It is quite absurd, therefore, to suggest that the Chinese situation and the whole situation in the Far East can be looked upon merely as part of the cold war which has been going on for five years. It was in 1920 that Marshal Stalin said:
England's back will be broken, not on the banks of the Thames, but on the Yangtse, the Ganges and the Nile.
That was the directive laid down by Marshal Stalin in 1920, and that is the directive which is now being so efficiently carried out. In confirmation of that, I saw this report in the "Daily Worker."
In a statement made on the new Chinese People's Democracy, issued on the 28th anniversary of the Chinese party, Mao Tse-tung says:
'One is either on the side of imperialism or the side of Socialism. Neutrality is a camouflage, and a third road does not exist. The present need is to push forward industrialisation as fast as possible. To this end, capitalism in the New China will not at present be eliminated, but it will be restricted. We want to trade. There has to be trade. We oppose only those domestic and foreign reactionaries who hamper us from doing our business, and we do not oppose any other people. Let us give thanks to Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin who gave us the weapons. These weapons are not machine guns, but Marxism-Leninism.'
As a matter of fact they are machine guns as well, but he did not disclose that.
I do not want to go further afield than is necessary. But this is the background against which this situation must be seen. So far as the trading situation is concerned, about which the Government have had no clear policy since they won the General Election in 1945, it is relevant to underline what my hon. and gallant Friend said about the difficulties foreign merchants are having in China. These difficulties should be seen in the light of the remarks I have just quoted. I see "The Economist" says:
Foreign merchants in China have been having a very difficult time. Trade has fallen to about a third of a year ago; profits have been cut to below the minimum, so that, in the case of British firms, extra capital has had to be sent to China in order to keep the businesses going; the Peking Government have imposed a number of arbitrary taxes and in one way or another have even made it impossible for those firms who would like to do so to close down their business and leave the country.


The Minister of State knows that we are still running after the Peking Government and arguing with them on the recognition terms, whereas recognition was given on the very eve of the Colombo conference without consulting the Dominions, a most disgraceful act on the part of the Government, which was calculated to start off the conference in the worse possible atmosphere.
In view of the fact that these 6,000 crates of valuable military stores have already left the Island, and in view of the fact that further stores are likely to leave in the near future because of the court decision, I feel that I must ask the Minister whether he thinks;—

12.35 p.m.

Mr. Paget: I have been listening with interest to the speeches of both hon. and gallant Members, and I am extremely worried to see how they can be in order. The matter concerns certain property in Hong Kong as to which there appear to be three claims, the claimants having brought actions before an established court of the Colony. That would appear to be a matter which is sub judice and, being before a British court, out of order to be discussed here. Assuming that a stage is reached in this case, which has not yet been reached, that a decision is come to, then the successful party will be allowed to execute his judgment and can be prevented from doing so only by legislation. Therefore, on that aspect too, is it not out of order to discuss something over which the Minister has no executive power and which can be dealt with only by legislation?

Mr. John Foster: Surely the question is whether it is desirable that these aeroplanes should go physically to the Communist régime in China, which is the matter we are discussing? It is quite possible under existing legislation for an export prohibition to be imposed. My hon. and gallant Friend was arguing that a commission of inquiry should go out to find out what is the situation, in view of the background my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) has brought to the notice of the House, namely, that the Communists are attacking us in the Far East. Surely that must be relevant when discussing whether the 71 aeroplanes should get into their power or not?

Mr. Paget: How can any of the things suggested be done without legislation?

Major Beamish: The hon. and learned Member has suggested that this matter is sub judice. I read an extract from, Wednesday's "Daily Telegraph," since when I understand there has been no new development. The last sentence was that
General Chennault has indicated that he intends to appeal against the Supreme Court decision, but has not yet taken any legal action.
Therefore it seems perfectly clear that the question is not sub judice, although it may be one day.

Mr. Paget: The time limit has not yet expired.

Mr. Speaker: I have no knowledge on what has been happening, but if the matter is sub judice, it is out of order to discuss it. If the matter is not sub judice, the hon. and gallant Member is entitled to make a case. Perhaps the Minister can explain the position to the House.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. John Dugdale): We consider that the matter is sub judice, and I had intended saying so. I was going on to explain the case in some detail, and then to say that it was definitely sub judice and that for that reason we cannot take any action on it. I cannot take a definite decision one way or another, because it is sub judice until 23rd April.

Air-Commodore Harvey: The parties concerned applied for an injunction to restrain the other side taking the equipment away, and that application was refused. Surely, as no further application has been made in the Hong Kong courts, we are entitled to discuss the matter on these lines?

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Is a matter technically out of order for discussion on the Adjournment when no appeal has been lodged and it is impossible for us to say whether or not an appeal will be lodged?

Mr. Speaker: If an appeal has been made, the matter is sub judice.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Notice of appeal has not been given.

Mr. Paget: This needs a little clarification. There are no fewer than three actions arising here. There is an action in which the American companies are plaintiffs, an action in which the Communist authorities are plaintiffs, and an action in which the individuals who I think would be described as the people who were "sitting in" are the plaintiffs. It is true that one of these actions has resulted in what we call interlocutory proceedings for an injunction being taken. That injunction has been granted, and an appeal against it has been lodged. That is the only interlocutory proceeding in the main action which continues.

Mr. Speaker: I have not legal knowledge, nor can I can be expected to know everything that is happening all over the world. The Minister says that the matter is sub judice. He is responsible, and I must accept his statement.

Air-Commodore Harvey: If, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) says, the matter is sub judice, why is the equipment leaving Hong Kong almost daily. Surely until the matter of the material is settled it should remain intact there. I would not have raised this delicate matter if the equipment were remaining in Hong Kong pending a final decision, but that is not the case. The equipment is leaving, and I cannot see in those circumstances how the matter can be sub judice.

Mr. Dugdale: It is a fact that an appeal has been lodged. As a matter of fact, the appeal has been lodged by the people representing the Chinese Nationalists and the United States. The appeal having been lodged, it will be heard on 28th April, so I submit to the House that it is, in fact, sub judice.

Mr. Foster: Surely we should clear our minds as to what is sub judice. Let us assume for one moment that someone is claiming the Tower of London. That is sub judice, but it does not prevent us from discussing the future of the Tower of London. There are three claimants to these aeroplanes. It is quite possible to discuss the different questions as to what administrative action the Minister should adopt with regard to these aeroplanes. It is not as if we were considering the question of a man who is appealing to the Privy Council against a death sentence imposed in West Africa. If we discuss

whether he should or should not be pardoned or whether some action should be taken to interfere or reverse or bring in legislation to alter the court's decision, we would be discussing something that is sub judice. But the mere fact that one aspect of these aeroplanes is under discussion in the courts, does not preclude a general discussion at this stage of what administrative action the Minister should take with regard to the prevention of the export of what we on this side of the House call war material.
That is, in my submission, a perfectly proper question to discuss, and need not interfere in any way with the decision of the court. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, we have got to accept that the courts are ready to say that the Communist Government are immune from the Statute and could not be touched in the courts. However, that is not the question. For instance, in America what happened at the beginning of the 1939 war? A lot of actions were pending about war material, but the executive Government prevented the export of the war material from the United States, and it is that administrative action, which the right hon. Gentleman could take under existing legislation, which we think he should take.

Mr. Dugdale: No, it cannot be taken under existing legislation. That was the further point mentioned by my hon. Friend. Not only is the case sub judice but no action can be taken without legislation, which is a further reason why it is possible that this whole subject may be out of Order.

Mr. James Hudson: The Minister must have been aware all along of these legal inhibitions against this discussion. The discussion has gone very far outside the issue of the legal position in China, and the explanation which has been made to us is that we have not had a Debate on the Far Eastern general situation for the last five years. There has been a considerable opening up of charges this morning, which certainly I should like to hear rebutted, and I should like to take part in rebutting them. The Minister sat quietly in his seat while all these issues were being raised, and then suddenly he informed the House that he was intending to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the legal


inhibitions against the progress of the Debate. Now you have accepted that, and all these charges have gone by the board. There is no opportunity afforded to reply to them. Is it not a little unfair that we should be in that position, and could you, Mr. Speaker, not consider that before giving a final Ruling on the matter?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I do not know whether the House is aware that this technical question of the aircraft has developed into a much wider issue. The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) has gone as far back as to quote to us what Stalin said in 1921. I submit that what Mr. Stalin said in 1921 is not sub judice. It should certainly not go out to the world that some of the views expressed this morning are representative of the opinion of this House.

Mr. Foster: Would it not be possible to compromise on this by not referring specifically to the aeroplanes, but instead discussing the question of whether equipment of this kind should or should not be allowed to go to Communist China.

Mr. Speaker: It would be possible to keep in Order in that way and refer to administrative action only. Hon. Members cannot refer to anything which is sub judice and if they do, I must rule that they are out of Order.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Surely if this matter had been sub judice, the Government, through one of the Law Officers of the Crown, would have made representations at the beginning of this Debate to the effect that we were out of order, and if they substantiated their case the Debate would not have proceeded. If we could have an assurance that something will be done to retain the equipment in Hong Kong until the courts decide the issue, everybody will be satisfied. That is all we are asking for. If the matter is sub judice, could we have that assurance?

Mr. Dugdale: No Sir, because that raises a further point which would require legislation, and I cannot give an assurance that legislation will be introduced on that, nor can the question of legislation, I understand, be discussed on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: If an hon. Member wishes to raise a matter on the Adjournment and it is known beforehand that the Government Department responsible for the matter considers it sub judice and out of order, surely the Adjournment Debate should not be allowed to take place.

Mr. Speaker: It is not officially known what is going to be brought up on the Adjournment, and the Minister is entitled to wait and hear what way the Debate will develop. The Minister is able to accept legal advice from the Law Officers of the Crown, and therefore the responsibility must rest with the Minister.

Major Beamish: In the light of that Ruling, I must be careful not to criticise the court's decision, but the latest reports in any of the newspapers, including yesterday's "Daily Telegraph," which I have quoted to the House, show that the application of the American registered Civil Air Transport Incorporated to get an injunction to stop these stores leaving the island was turned down by Mr. E. H. Williams, acting Chief Justice of Hong Kong. Therefore, these stores can continue to leave. The Minister made the point just now that an appeal had actually been made. The latest information which I have here is that no legal action has yet been taken by General Chennault, and if the Minister thinks that some appeal has been made, it would be interesting to know what the action was, and by whom it was made.

Mr. Dugdale: There are two points. One is the point about spares and the other is the point dealing with the planes. With regard to the spares, I can only repeat that there are no powers by which those spares can be prevented from leaving the country. As regards the planes, the court ruled on 23rd February that the property was in the possession and control of the Chinese People's Government and that it would be a violation of the rights of a foreign Sovereign Power to make an order directing that the property in its possession and control should be delivered over to a receiver appointed by the court.
An appeal against this decision has been lodged, as I said before, by the side representing Chinese Nationalist and United States interests, and that appeal is


due to be heard on 28th April. As regards the question of the spares, we have no administrative powers, and the matter would require legislation. As regards the question of the planes going, it is sub judice until 28th April.

Mr. Foster: When the right hon. Gentleman says "legislation" I presume that he means an Act of Parliament. Has he no power to issue Orders in Council in regard to export matters?

Mr. Dugdale: It would have to be legislation by the Hong Kong Government.

Air-Commodore Harvey: How does the right hon. Gentleman differentiate between spares for aeroplanes and the aircraft themselves? Surely they are part and parcel of the same thing.

Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir. The matter in dispute is the question of the registration of the aircraft and not of the spares. That is as I understand the matter. Until that question is settled, the aircraft are in a different position from the spares.

Major Beamish: In that case, perhaps I might confine my remarks by speaking only about the aircraft spares, of which about 6,000 crates have already left the Island. I will not ask the Minister to stop those spares going because that would require legislation, but I want to ask him something else. I am assuming that in the Far East—

Mr. Paget: The spares are quite clearly sub judice, as we have just heard. [HON MEMBERS: "No, they are leaving the island now."] The question of their ownership is sub judice.

Major Beamish: If what the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) says is correct, that the question of the ownership of the spares leaving the island is sub judice, and if it is also correct that to retain them there might require legislation, as the Minister has said, I hope that it would be in Order to point out that 6,000 crates have already gone, and to speculate upon the use to which they might be put by the Communists in the Far East who are now waging a hot war. Would that be in Order, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: That seems to be all right.

Major Beamish: It was really on those lines that I was arguing earlier. I had appreciated the difficulty of discussing the whereabouts of these 71 planes. I am not going to retrace any of the ground that I had covered before this storm-in-a-teacup arose. All I am now trying to do is to remind the Minister of State that in the Far East at the moment there is an increasingly grave situation which gets graver as the weeks go on and which, so far as the British public are concerned, is very largely out of sight and therefore out of mind. If this Debate serves no more useful purpose than to draw attention to that deteriorating situation in the Far East and to the fact that the Communists in Malaya, Burma, China, Indo-China and throughout the whole of the Far East are centrally controlled and directed by the Far Eastern Cominform, which is, I believe—

Mr. J. Hudson: On a point of Order. Will it be in order, despite the legal difficulties with which we have just been concerned, for us now to follow in this Debate these references to Indo-China and to the ramifications of Communism in the Far East, and, if necessary, to the philosophies of Lenin, Marx and the rest of them, which have been dragged into this Debate? It is a most interesting field. Sir, and I am putting it to you quite sympathetically in the hope that your Ruling will be as I should like it to be. If it is not going to be so, I would submit that the hon. and gallant Gentleman now addressing the House is wandering into a very wide field.

Mr. John Paton: We have been informed, and I think it is clear, that the stoppage of the use of the spares about which the Debate has turned, would involve legislation. How is it possible, since any proposal involving legislation is out of order in Adjournment Debates and the Minister obviously cannot reply, to discuss the uses of these spares which the Minister is not empowered in any way to deal with? How can we discuss them in any reasonable way, since that is the position?

Air-Commodore Harvey: I would point out that the Communists, the 30 of them, would never have been in control of these spares had their passes been withdrawn from the local airport. There


would have been no Communists there at all, and the spares would have been in the hands of the other side.

Mr. Speaker: This is rather complicated. I am not quite clear where the authority lies. Where does the legislation come from? This House, or from Hong Kong?

Mr. Dugdale: From the colonial Government.

Mr. Speaker: Then it is quite in Order. Legislation by a Colonial Government is in Order.

Air-Commodore Harvey: One of my hon. Friends has gone out to get some of the necessary details in regard to colonial legislation.

Mr. Speaker: It is quite in order. It is our own legislation that we cannot discuss.

Major Beamish: rose—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present.

Mr. Keeling: On a point of Order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the messengers outside the Chamber were heard to call "Who goes home?"?

Mr. Speaker: I heard the messenger being told to say "Count" straight away. I hope that was done.

House counted, and 40 Members being present.

12.59 p.m.

Major Beamish: I must express my great astonishment at the efforts being made by every conceivable means by hon. Gentlemen opposite—although they are perfectly within their rights in using them—to stop this Debate. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is very significant."] I am very glad to see the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) present. He makes most valuable contributions to these Debates whenever they touch upon military subjects.

Mr. Bing: May I point out to the hon. and gallant Member that some of us have left occupations and engagements with which we were engaged to come into the Chamber and prevent the Adjournment Debate being interrupted.

Major Beamish: Some hon. Gentlemen opposite think that this may be a valuable subject to discuss. Everyone will agree that the points of Order have been a little confusing. I hope I am right in saying that it appears now that any legislation that might be involved would be legislation in the Colony of Hong Kong, and that on those grounds there is no question of this discussion being out of order. I think it is also agreed that not only have nearly 6,000 crates of valuable aircraft spares and parts left Hong Kong but that other spares and parts are likely to leave in the future.
I was attempting to deal with the question of the destination of these spares and the use to which they might be put. If I remember, I was in the middle of a sentence when this last rumpus occurred. I think I was drawing attention to the speech which I have tried to make by summing up and by describing the way in which the Far-Eastern Cominform, which is, of course, controlled directly by the Politbureau in the Kremlin, is in charge of these Communist activities which are causing the Atlantic Pact and the Western Union Powers such very great trouble in the Far East. About that there can be no shadow of doubt.
That leads me to take the opportunity of drawing the attention of the Government to the point that the fact that these spares are leaving the Colony of Hong Kong is only underlining the fact that since 1945, when the Socialists became the masters, there has been no indication at all of any coherent policy regarding East-West trade. The most frightful example of all was when Rolls Royce Nene jet engines were sent to the Soviet Union. That showed a grave lack of co-ordination between Government Departments. I cannot credit that when the Minister of Supply, who I believe was responsible for this, gave instructions and allowed them to go, the Foreign Office had any real knowledge of it. All these Communist countries are increasingly locked together by trade agreements, whether they are in the Far East or in Europe. All agreements between Communist countries contain secret clauses. The last agreement between Czechoslovakia and Russia contained only one sentence simply saying that a trade agreement had been signed.
Against this military and political background, I feel sure that the Minister of State, without commenting on any legal decision that has been taken, can but regret the fact that these valuable military stores are going to Communist China. It is no good saying that these spare parts and stores are only suitable for civil planes. The Minister knows perfectly well that any large modern aircraft, or even a small aircraft, in the conditions of war which exist, for example, in Burma, is invaluable to either side. The use of a Hawker Hart with a bucket full of Mills bombs in it would be invaluable to the Communists who are at present in occupation of the aerodrome at Prome in Burma. It is most unpleasant to have a bucket full of Mills bombs on one's head, no matter how small or ancient the plane may be from which they are dropped. I have not had personal experience of that, and I hope that I never do.
I am sure that the Minister will not indulge in the argument that these spare parts and stores, or indeed the aircraft, are civil equipment. The machines are suitable for parachutists or for carrying airborne troops, or even for carrying bombs in one way or another. I appeal most sincerely to the Minister to consider the whole question against the general and deteriorating military and political background throughout the whole of the Far East. It is obvious that if the Government were looking for a legal loophole through which these stores which are of a military nature could be provided to Communist China, it would not be difficult for them to find one.
I suggest that this is a far wider and more important issue. In view of the fact that what is happening at the moment has been the subject of adverse criticism in the United States and bearing in mind the other reasons which I have outlined, the very least the Minister can do is to assure us that the whole question will be re-examined in the light of the wider picture which I have tried to paint and the most able case put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield.

1.5 p.m.

Mr. Paton: Although every backbencher in the House realises the very great importance of the opportunies we have on Adjournments to raise all kinds of matters for which time is not found in the official programme, I must say that I am sorry that this Debate has developed as it has done. The issues that have now been raised in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) go very far beyond the subject originally stated by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey). What has now been raised is the whole question of the relationship of the Western Powers, and particularly the relationship of the Government of Great Britain, to the Communist Powers throughout the world.
I regret that this much wider issue has been raised in this fashion, because it is of completely fundamental importance not only to Great Britain but to every country in the whole world. It seems unfair that this should be sprung on the Minister when he is obviously in a position where he cannot possibly give any effective reply.

Major Beamish: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the Minister of State has very great responsibilities indeed, for example, regarding the situation in Malaya on which subject he answers Questions in this House—although most inadequately.

Mr. Paton: Yes, and because he has those responsibilities, surely it would have been fair and wise to warn him in advance that these issues were to be raised, so that he might have come here prepared to say something about them. Obviously the Minister, not having received warning, has prepared himself for the much narrower issue raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield. I hope that the Minister will find himself completely unable to venture on the very dangerous ground opened up by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this situation has been brought about entirely as a result of what was said by the hon. and


learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) was merely exercising his skill to get round a point of Order, and that is something which is frequently done by hon. Gentlemen opposite. As events have turned out, it has been proved that the Minister was wrong on the subject of legislation. It was legislation in the Colony, and not in this country, which was required.

Mr. Dugdale: I have always said that it was legislation in the Colony.

Mr. Paton: I do not think that this touches the point I was making. It is undesirable that a Minister should be asked, without warning, to commit the Government in a statement upon these extremely difficult and dangerous questions. Everybody realises how explosive these questions can be. It is all very well for myself as a back-bencher without Governmental responsibility, or for hon. Members opposite as back-benchers, to express views freely upon matters of this kind, as I hope that we all will, but it is an entirely different matter to expect a Minister to stand up on the spur of the moment and to deal with matters of this quality on an occasion such as this.
I turn to some of the comments of the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes. It must have been obvious to the House, when he was developing the argument about the military uses of these spares upon which attention has now been pinned, how completely one-sided the presentation of his views was. He said, quite properly, that a civil airplane can, at very short notice and with a minimum of preparation, be turned into an effective weapon for war offensive. Even those of us who have no technical knowledge about aeroplanes know that. It is obvious, therefore, that these spare parts upon which the Debate has been pinned and which have been sent out from Hong Kong to Communist China may play some part in military operations within the territory of that power or within any other territory which the planes may reach.
That is true, but was it not a significant thing that the hon. Member was emphasising in that argument that, while he was so anxious to deprive Communist China of even spare parts that might

have potential military uses, he had no word whatever to say about the actions of the Government of Chiang Kai-shek in Formosa in using American bombers and dropping American explosives on the territory and people of Communist China whom he is so anxious to deprive of the effective means of defence. Had he been really concerned for the peace of the world in the Far East, he would surely have shown wisdom by protesting against the use of American planes by General Chiang Kai-shek as well as against the use of spare parts exported from the British Colony of Hong Kong.

Major Beamish: I have no doubt that General Chiang Kai-shek will take careful note of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I doubt if it will have very much effect.

Mr. Paton: I should very much like to have some effect on General Chiang Kai-shek. Since we are raising this issue in this wide form, it is necessary that we should speak plainly about it. The Government of Chiang Kai-shek is engaged in a series of piratical and destructive raids upon the territory of a Government with which we ourselves are in friendly relations, and I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, since he raised these issues, he should try to look at them in an objective manner.
If hon. Gentlemen opposite deplore the use of spares from Hong Kong for this Government, with whom we are in friendly relations, and if they deplore their use for military purposes, they ought to be frank and sincere enough also to express their distaste of the use of bombing planes by General Chiang Kai-shek in Formosa, but we have not heard a single word about it. I am not referring to the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield, but to the argument which I heard from the hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last, and I suggest that we have to make up our minds, not only on the question whether it is wise to allow these spares to go from Hong Kong to General Mao, but also on the question of what our attitude is to be to the far more important issue of our relations with Communist powers in the Far East and elsewhere.
The logic of the argument from the other side is not merely that we should disrupt the friendly relations which we


have established with General Mao and his Government, but that we should disrupt our friendly relations and contacts with every Communist Government and people throughout the world. Every word uttered by the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not merely an argument against friendly relations with Communist China but also an argument against friendly relations with Soviet Russia. It was an argument for breaking off all contacts with any Communist Governments anywhere.

Major Beamish: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot allow that to be said. I produced no such argument, and never in my life have I suggested breaking off diplomatic relations with any Communist country. I have never suggested that, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will give me that credit.

Mr. Paton: I must accept that that might have been the hon. and gallant Gentleman's intention, and all that I would ask is that tomorrow he should take a careful look at what he said as it is reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am perfectly certain that nobody, reading what he said, could mistake the logic of the argument put forward. Of course, the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not say that he wanted to break off relations with all these powers, but what was the meaning of his argument if that was not its purpose and intention? The hon. and gallant Gentleman, after all, cannot possibly come to this House and endorse a full-scale attack being made upon a country with which we are in friendly relations, though it has a Communist Government, just because of the fact that it is a Communist Government—because, after all, that was the reason for his attack—and, at the same time, imagine that he can also advocate, at one and the same time, friendly relations with Communist Governments in the Far East and elsewhere.

Major Beamish: I want to make clear what I said. The whole of my argument had led me to this conclusion, which ought to be clear. The Western Powers, the signatories to the Atlantic Pact and Western Union, should in no circumstances trade with the Communist-dominated countries controlled by the Kremlin in such a way as to increase their military

potential in relation to our own. I hope that is now clear.

Mr. Paton: I accept that that was the intention and meaning of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, but it seems to me that it does not really alter the logic of it. After all, what is a military supply? The hon. and gallant Gentleman himself knows perfectly well that we are not discussing at the moment anything which can be described technically as military supplies. The subject upon which this discussion has been pinned, by his own choice, is the question of the use of spare parts for civilian aeroplanes which are now in Hong Kong, and these are not, technically, military weapons.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Yes.

Mr. Paton: Hon. Members will see the logic of the argument. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman is trying to do, whether he admits it or not, is to deprive Communist China of any means whatever of helping in its own defence against air attacks from the piratical Government established by General Chiang Kai-shek in Formosa. That is what he has been arguing, and that is the logic and the meaning of it, and we may as well face it.
I do not want to continue to debate this point at any length. I want to finish on another point. I hope, by the way, that this discussion will convince my hon. Friends on this side, and particularly my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, that the time has gone by, and very long gone by, when we should have had a really full-scale Debate on these enormously important issues which affect the whole of the Far East. I hope my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip, who has now resumed his seat on the Front Bench, will convey those sentiments to the Leader of the House so that we may have such a Debate before very long.
The subject upon which I wish to conclude is this. In all these important matters, we have to make up our minds on one great central issue. We have to make up our minds whether, in this enormously difficult matter of putting a measure to the advance of Communism in the Far East and elsewhere, it is a wise and statesmanlike thing to meet it everywhere with an opposition that can only be a vain opposition, or whether we should try, as we are trying to do in


China, to establish normal friendly relations which will at least—[Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) has now arrived with material to fortify his argument, but I hope that he will not be fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye until I have departed for lunch.
My point was that we have to make up our minds whether it is the wise and statesmanlike thing in the situation, not only in the Far East but throughout the world vis-à-vis Communism and Communist Powers, to try to detach them from the central Communist Power of Soviet Russia by maintaining friendly relations with them so far as that is possible and giving them the friendly help which they are entitled to expect from us, or whether we should maintain towards them an attitude of open or concealed hostility, refusing to have any kind of normal relations with them and refusing them the technical and other assistance which they require from us, therefore forcing them willy-nilly more strongly and more closely into the orbit of Soviet influence.
That is the decision we have to make. I have no hesitation at all about the direction of my choice. I am all for friendly relations, for establishing contact and for co-operating in raising the social and economic conditions of the peoples of the Far East who have now succumbed to the Communist dogma. I believe that to be the only real and effective way in which we can finally erect a barrier against the continuous spread of Communist influence.

1.22 p.m.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I can assure the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Paton) that there was one portion of his speech with which I am in full agreement, namely, that long before now, the Government should have provided time for a full-scale Debate on the whole question of the Far East. It is very unsatisfactory from many points of view that these wide issues should have to be discussed in an Adjournment Debate, for one reason, if for no other, that in an Adjournment Debate of this sort there is no representative on the Front Bench from the Foreign Office, which is very closely concerned with this matter, to hear what

hon. Members on both sides of the House have to say.

Air-Commodore Harvey: They were notified.

Mr. Mott-Radelyffe: The hon. Member for Norwich, North, seemed to resent the fact that the matter was raised at all.

Mr. Paton: No.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I understood his view to be that it was wrong for any hon. Member to raise a matter on the Adjournment which might put the Minister responsible in an awkward position when he came to reply. If that is his view, it is one to which I do not subscribe.

Mr. Paton: The hon. Gentleman slightly misunderstood me. What I regretted was the widening of this Debate on to what are really dangerous issues without warning the Minister who was expected to reply.

Mr. Foster: I understood that he was warned.

Mr. Dugdale: I am not complaining.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: We do not want to listen to the arguments all over again, but the widening of the Debate was due to a point of Order raised by an hon.. Member opposite as to whether the subject matter involved legislation and whether the matter was sub judice. I thought it a little curious that the Minister of State did not admit until we had had a discussion on these points of Order for about 10 minutes that any legislation which was involved concerned not this House but the Colony of Hong Kong. The hon. Member for Norwich, North, talked a good deal about friendly relations with Communist China, but he seemed to forget the unpleasant fact that friendship means two-way traffic. It is not enough for one side to stretch out the hand of friendship if that hand is not grasped by the other.

Mr. Paton: But it is worth while stretching it out.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: His Majesty's Government have recognised de jure the Communist Government of China, but so far the Communist Government of China have not been able to decide whether


they should recognise His Majesty's Government. That is hardly a very good reciprocal gesture of friendship on their part. If the hon. Member will refresh his memory as to the relationship between the Western Powers and the Soviet Union and its satellites during the last four and a half or five years, he will find that the many acts of hostility, both open and covert, which have been committed have not been committed on this side of the Iron Curtain, whether it be here or in the Far East.
I hope that when he replies the Minister of State will so frame his speech as to deal with one or two specific points. This Adjournment Debate should not become a lawyers' field day because, although the legal position is important, much wider points are at issue than these. First of all, if it is necessary for the Colony of Hong Kong to introduce legislation to prohibit the despatch of spare parts or, still more important, the aircraft from the Colony to Communist hands, I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman anticipated this position, whether he has been in communication with the Governor of Hong Kong and whether he has given any advice; or has he just sat back and done nothing at all until this extremely difficult situation has arisen?
Secondly, while we all wish to carry out both the letter and the spirit of international agreements and obligations on any legal point, I have not noticed that the Communists, either in Asia or in Europe, have been over-meticulous in carrying out international obligations in relation to British subjects who have been put under arrest and accused of fantastic charges. I have not noticed any legal observance 'of the Soviet obligations in respect of the clauses of various peace treaties, notably those which concern the Balkan countries. We ought, therefore, to be a little careful how widely we interpret our own legal obligations in respect of the Communist-controlled Government of China.
I also hope that the Minister of State will frame his reply against the general background of the cold war, because it is no good denying that there is a cold war which is splitting the world in two. Happily at this end of the world the war is still cold, but in Malaya and elsewhere

it is far from cold. To allow these aircraft and the spare parts for them—whether they be civil or military is really splitting hairs at this juncture against the background of the extremely tense situation—to be dispatched without any attempt to hold them up pending further clarification of the legal position, seems to be most unwise.
What sort of effect will this action—or inaction—on the part of the Government have upon the United States, the Dominions, the British troops so gallantly fighting in Malaya and the unfortunate planters and other inhabitants of Malaya who go in daily fear of their lives? What sort of impression is this going to make on the morale of the civilian population in Hong Kong? It is easy enough for us here, thousands of miles away, to talk about friendly relations, but it is quite a different matter for those who are living in close contact with Communist forces, or Communist-controlled forces, and know what banditry and kidnapping mean.
I should like the Minister to address himself to the psychological effect of the inaction of His Majesty's Government. One cannot put a cold war into watertight departments. One cannot separate the plan in Malaya from the plan in China or in Burma or any other theatre. They all fit together. The pieces of the mosaic make one whole pattern. The Only way to combat these tactics is for His Majesty's Government and the United States and the Dominions to get together and work out a similar plan of co-ordination. That is just what His Majesty's Government have not done, otherwise we should not have got into this extremely humiliating position of offering unilateral recognition to Communist China—to the dismay of the United States and the Dominions—without, in turn, receiving recognition ourselves. Will the Minister of State address himself to these points, with particular reference to the release of aircraft and spare parts, because that is part and parcel of the same sorry story?

1.35 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson: The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) complained that the Debate had been opened too wide, following upon the intervention of my hon. and learned


Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). But before that intervention on the legal question which troubled the House and Mr. Speaker for so long, hon. Friends of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Windsor had indulged fully in a series of arguments of the kind he has referred to.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I did not raise that at all. The hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood me. In the first place, I said it was regrettable that, hitherto, until this Adjournment, there had been no opportunity for a general discussion on the Far East. I said that a general discussion on the Far East was an awkward subject for this Adjournment Debate and only arose because the narrow discussion on the actual handing over of aircraft had been called in question by an hon. Member.

Mr. Hudson: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view, but I claimed from Mr. Speaker, and I think I had his agreement at the time, that so much had been said by Friends of the hon. Gentleman about the general issue of the situation in the Far East that the matter could be referred to from this side of the House. I am intervening because the Debate has run along that course.
I suggest that in all Chinese issues in the last half century this country, for the most part, has been embarking upon policies that very soon after it discovered to be entirely mistaken and it has had to retrace its steps. I became convinced of that truth a good many years ago when I sat on the Committee upstairs that dealt with the Boxer indemnity from China. We had imposed on China conditions of which we became ashamed, and we were very glad to retrace our steps and make available to the Chinese the indemnity that we had sought to extract from them earlier.
I feel that, with the type of argument they have pursued today, hon. Gentlemen opposite are making just the same sort of mistake about China. Later on, some Government will have to undo that mistake. For example, in their desire to condemn the Communists and to call us to a policy that will deal with the Communists as outcasts, hon. Members opposite forget entirely that in their military reactions, not merely in Russia but in China, the Communists are actuated by the conditions from which they them-

selves suffer. I am entirely in accord with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. J. Paton) that we ought not to connive at the situation in China for a moment.
The situation is that a Government, which is now an outcast Government on an island off the shores of China, is endeavouring to build up an aerial force to be used in acts of banditry—let us make no mistake about it—against the Government which we have admitted to be responsible for China. I repeat that we should not connive at that for a moment, but hon. Gentlemen opposite, either directly or indirectly, by their constant innuendos against Communism in Asia, fail to recognise that, at its worst, Communism in Asia is the result of a policy that is being pursued in Formosa. On all sides of the House we should make it quite clear that we cannot support that policy for a moment.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Can the hon. Gentleman explain the difference between Communism in South-East Asia and Communism in South-Eastern Europe?

Mr. Hudson: It is not necessary for the purpose of my argument. All I know is that what is taking place in Formosa at present is an attempt by a Government, which we no longer admit to be the Government of China, to win the position by force. And they are using that detestable kind of force which our people deeply resented when it was used against this country. It is a kind of force that always will be resented. Because of that attitude in Formosa the people and Government of China take an attitude very different from that expressed today by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I know that it is necessary for us to be very careful what we say when we speak about this matter. I know the Americans are taking a different point of view from the one I am expressing. For example, I know that they look with a greater element of sympathy than I can look upon what I call the bandit government of Formosa. I know that where China is concerned they feel the need to proceed with care in the matter of the future development of international policy. But I still think that it is necessary to protest so vigorously from these Benches—and


I had hoped that hon. Gentlemen opposite would have seen it to be necessary—that even Chiang Kai-shek might understand.
Someone said just now that he was not likely to be influenced very much by anything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North. I think he would be influenced if there were a united expression from all Benches in this House that we cannot approve for a moment an attempt to undermine the Communist Government of China by reverting to war and methods of violence and force. That is all the more important in view of the mistakes and wickedness for which Communism has become responsible in the East. I agree that the Communists have put themselves out of court by many of the actions which they have pursued, but I maintain that they are out of court very largely because of the things from which they have suffered. We have to make an all round approach to this problem if a new situation is to be induced in China and in the East generally.
I realise that I cannot expect right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench to say very much about this, but I do maintain that if we are to get a new situation in China it will not depend very much on what happens in the matter of spare parts for aeroplanes. That is a very small matter. The big issue in China at the moment is: how are the people to be fed? Never mind the spare parts. How are we to get food to the people of China? Any Government in China, whether a Communist Government or the Chiang Kai-shek Government, which could obtain our help in alleviating that situation—and that is the main problem in China today—would be far more likely to be won into friendly and better relations with us than by our insistence on ascertaining what has happened to the spare parts of aeroplanes.
Hon. Members have suggested that we are being watched very carefully by America, by the Malay people and by our Dominions. We are, but I believe that if we could direct our attention along the lines I am suggesting—and, as far as I can make out, the Government intend to do so—we would be far nearer than we are at the moment to a peaceful solution of the problems in the East. I am sure

the Government intend to act on those lines if possible. If my hon. Friend the Minister of State cannot say very much about this question I appreciate the limitations of a Debate of this sort. I hope that the time will soon come when we shall be able to debate in full the whole issue of the East, and the policy we ought to adopt towards the Communists if we are to have friendly relations with them.

Sir W. Darling: Does the hon. Gentleman favour the exportation of what may well be munitions of war from this country to another country?

Mr. Hudson: The hon. Gentleman asks me to answer that question with reference to one country only. I object to munitions of war being used by any country.

Sir W. Darling: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hudson: I have been saying that the use of munitions in Formosa is one of the causes of the present situation, in which so many other people want to use those munitions as well. If we want to get rid of the dangers of munitions of war we must do a great deal more than we have done.

1.43 p.m.

Mr. John Foster: I do not think hon. Members need be frightened by the number of books which I have brought with me. I brought them in to show the Minister that this is a matter for legislation in the Colony of Hong Kong. I wish to protest against the position which the Minister has adopted in this Debate. First of all, he attempted to prevent any discussion—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I intervene? I quite agree with the hon. Member's protest. I quite agree that the Debate ought to continue, but I would point out that the precedent was set a fortnight ago by an hon. Member sitting on the benches opposite.

Mr. Foster: All I am complaining about is the Minister's attitude in this Debate. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) tried to restrict the scope of this Debate by what we all regard as a lot of legal "falderals." Then the Minister made two propositions. First of all, he said that the matter is


sub judice. I think he is wrong. It is not possible to argue that matter now, but I ask him to examine his own conscience after the Debate as to whether he is right or not. Secondly, he had the effrontery to state that the matter is the subject of legislation. When I asked him a specific question, he continued his objection. I went out to get a lot of books, and when I came back I found that he had recanted. I suppose he had heard that I was getting some ammunition from the Library.
Surely he should agree that when he makes a statement which is accepted by the Chair he should be doubly careful. It is monstrous that he should try to restrict the scope of the Debate by saying that the matter is the subject of legislation, when he ought to have known—I do not say he must have known—that that argument was not valid. If he does not apologise to this House for having said that, I shall think very much less of him. He may have apologised when I was away from the Chamber,

Mr. Dugdale: I only said that it was the subject of Hong Kong legislation.

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman still does not apologise. He made an objection to your predecessor, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. He said that this Debate could not go on because the matter is sub judice, and it is the subject of legislation. That point of order very nearly won the day and he nearly succeeded in his object of depriving the House of the opportunity of discussing this important subject. He still has not apologised for raising a false point of order. I do not expect he will. I think it is monstrous. He has a special duty to the Chair to be very careful when making statements which are accepted by the Chair, and to be quite sure that those statements are correct. He should check his statements and he should be doubly careful. It is only when the matter developed and it became clear that he was going to be exposed that I understand he recanted. I make that protest because Ministers should realise that on points of order they must not be partisan. The Chair and the House expect their statements to be accurate.
We all ought to be indebted to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) for raising this matter. The question is

whether aircraft and spare parts should be made available to Communist China and, therefore, directly or indirectly to Russia. I agree with a good deal of what was said by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), but this Debate is not concerned with any attempt by Members on either side to support acts of banditry. The question is whether the Minister thinks that the ban which exists in the West against allowing the Russians to obtain materials of war—and I include aeroplanes and spare parts in that category—should be extended to the Far East. Surely that must be so, because if it is logical in the West it is logical in the East.
All that we on this side are doing is to raise the question whether the Minister can prevent this equipment from going to the Russian side. There is no question of taking sides as between Chiang Kai-shek's Government and the Communists. We have recognised the Communist Government, but we must be realistic about the matter. We can make a friendly gesture and assist the millions of starving people in China, but hon. Members opposite must surely agree that it is unwise to allow the Communist China-Russia alliance to benefit from valuable spare parts and aeroplanes.
That is the simple question in this Debate. It is no good the hon. Member for Ealing, North, trying to score a point against hon. Members on this side by suggesting that we are advocating acts of banditry on the part of the government based in Formosa. That is not the question. We are saying that equipment situated in Hong Kong should not be allowed to go to the Russians; that is what it boils down to. Of course, I appreciate what the Minister said about there being very difficult diplomatic matters involved and I think it behoves us not to complicate the task, except for raising the simple question which has already been raised.
The Minister probably knows that in dealing with the Communist règime we have to steer a course between, on the one hand, being firm and, on the other hand, never closing the door completely to some understanding, perhaps on a very high level. It is no good trying to placate Communist règimes by giving way here or there. What they understand is a firm policy with a definite objective, and our


objective and our policy with regard to the points which are the subject of this Debate, namely, spare parts and aeroplanes, should be to keep them on British territory so that they do not fall into the hands of the Russians. That is quite plain and it will not exacerbate the feelings of the Russians or of the people in this country—

Air-Commodore Harvey: Or of Chiang Kai-shek.

Mr. Foster: Or, as my hon. and gallant Friend says, the feelings of Chiang Kai-shek. There is only one thing I think I should add. I think the argument used by the hon. Member for Ealing, North, is a little dangerous. I accept the view that he is unalterably opposed to Communism, but he uses the argument that Communism in China is accounted for by the very low standard of living and the terrible conditions which obtain in that country. That may or may not be true, but it is not an argument which should be used to affect our policy.
Perhaps he can explain historically that the situation which obtained in China, where the social standard of the population was not high enough, was the main reason for the rise of Communism, but that is quite irrelevant when we are deciding whether we shall let them have spare parts and aeroplanes. The Communist règime is there, we know it is allied to the Russians and we know that the Russian règime is a menace to democracy, freedom and the peace of the world. We hope that the Russians will see reason and will ultimately come to some agreement with us; but in the meantime, as long as they do not, it is our job to see that they do not get either materials of war or materials which could be used for war purposes. That is the simple issue which has been raised so usefully by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield.

1.53 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am not so sure that the issue is quite as simple as the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) has made out. The point which he puts is this, that it is our business to prevent arms likely to be used by Communist Powers from falling into the hands of the enemy. Of all the places in the world about which to discuss this

issue, we choose Hong Kong! I can imagine no other place in the world which is less defensible from a military or a strategic point of view, yet to this isolated little outpost in the Far East presumably we have sent quite a substantial amount of military material and, if the policy of hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite is carried to its logical conclusion, we shall send more war material in the future. For what purpose? Inevitably to fall into the hands of the Communist enemy.
One would think that we had never lost Hong Kong. What happened to all the stores of materials which went into Hong Kong during the war with the Japanese? What happened to the British soldiers who were in Hong Kong? Inevitably we found, when it developed into a major war, that they were lost. Some of my constituents were imprisoned in Hong Kong. Scots soldiers were imprisoned as a result of being locked up in Hong Kong and vast amounts of military equipment in the last war fell into the hands of the Japanese. Presumably, indeed, some has even filtered through to Malaya to be used to kill Scots soldiers there.

Mr. Foster: Surely the hon. Member ought not to make the very defeatist and terrible assumption that there is bound to be war between Communist China and this country. Only on that assumption would Hong Kong fall into their hands.

Mr. Hughes: The only assumption I made is the inevitable logical outcome of the cold war argument which is being adduced in this House, that sooner or later it will develop into a hot war. I hope it will not. I do not say for a moment that the hon. Member for Northwich wants war, but I say that the logical outcome of all this insistent propaganda about East and West will inevitably lead to the possibility of war.
We have heard that American opinion is exercised about this matter, but that, surely, is rather curious because America has already tried the experiment of arming the Nationalist Government of China. I understand that the greater part of the enormous modern military equipment which was used by the Nationalist forces in China was supplied to Chiang Kai-shek by the Americans


and was captured by the Chinese Communists. I need only remind hon. and gallant Members opposite that the guns which were used in the shelling of the "Amethyst" were captured by the Chinese Communists from the Chinese Nationalists. I submit that when America has been forced to recognise that it is no longer possible to arm the Chinese Nationalists, we should by no means be taking much account of what reactionary opinion in America may think about this question of Hong Kong.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the hon. Member saying that he is prepared that arms should be supplied to the People's Government of China, to the Communists?

Mr. Hughes: Certainly not. I am not arguing that arms should be supplied to anybody. I know from history how stupid it has been for us to send arms to nationalist movements or to reactionary movements, ultimately to be captured by the Communists. If we take the analogy of Russia, the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) will remember that after the last War we sent £100 million worth of arms to support the Whites in Soviet Russia and they were immediately captured by the Russian Reds.

Air-Commodore Harvey: The last war?

Mr. Hughes: The counter-revolutionary war. The hon. and gallant Member knows well that the Leader of the Opposition justified that war and that we spent £100 milion of British money on stores and equipment in order to back up the reactionary forces in Soviet Russia.

Air-Commodore Harvey: On a point of Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Member in his speech, but we were discussing a matter relating to aircraft and spare parts being supplied from Hong Kong to the Communists.

Mr. Paget: No.

Air-Commodore Harvey: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) cannot have it both ways. Now, however, the Debate is going back to the war in Russia 30 years ago. What are we discussing?

Mr. Deputy - Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): On the Adjournment we can talk about anything that does not require legislation. I think the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is going on to show why his remarks about Russia are linked up with the present position in Hong Kong.

Mr. Hughes: May I say. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it takes one Scotsman to understand another. I have no doubt that the point I was making would have penetrated into the mind of the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield at a later stage of my argument, but I am obliged to you. Surely there is nothing far-fetched in that analogy. We are dealing with our attitude towards a Government which has been captured by the Communists, and we now know that in that war we sent a very large amount of military equipment to the Russian Whites which was duly captured by the Russian Reds. I submit that that historical lesson should be very carefully appreciated by the House before it agrees, by silence or argument, to support what the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) called "the background." We are not so interested in the technical or the legal question here, and people outside do not appreciate the fine point of Order raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman; and certainly it will not be appreciated by the Chinese.
What we have to remember is that when the reports of this Debate are read in Hong Kong—there are British newspapers published there—the Communists there will read the arguments adduced by the hon. and gallant Gentleman and suppose that in this House the argument is being used that Hong Kong is a base in the strategy of the cold war, and that it is being used as a base against the Communists in China. That is an exceedingly dangerous assumption. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield quite realises what this means. I, for one, do not believe that we should let it go out to the world that we are arguing that Hong Kong should be used as a base for distributing arms to the people engaged in fighting Communism in China.

Air-Commodore Harvey: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The point I was trying to make


in my speech was that the aircraft and equipment should be withheld from both sides, not only from the Communists but also from the Nationalist Government in Formosa.

Mr. Hughes: Oh, well, now we are getting on. The hon. and gallant Gentleman agrees that we should not supply arms to either side engaged in the cold war. As we appear to be also in the cold war, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is gradually being converted to the point of view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) and me. We cannot have a war against Communism without arms. I understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman now agrees we should not supply arms to either side, and I am hopeful that the arguments that I have been adducing have at last penetrated.
I want to know when we are coming out of Hong Kong. I do not believe that, from a military point of view, Hong Kong can possibly be defended. I look with some alarm, from the point of view of the British taxpayers, at the amount of money being spent in Hong Kong. If it comes within the purview of the reply that the Minister is to make, I should like to ask a question about the aerodrome in Hong Kong. How much money is being spent on it? I understand that the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield has argued at Question time that we are not spending enough. I should prefer that the money being spent in Hong Kong—as I believe, being wasted in Hong Kong—to be spent more profitably on airfields in this country. I can mention one that is near your constituency, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and mine. I should like to see the money spent on the aerodrome at Prestwick, rather than being invested in a very precarious manner in Hong Kong. Then we have our soldiers in Hong Kong. I have failed to elicit from any Minister exactly the cost of our military preparations in Hong Kong at the present time.
I share the view of the hon. Member for Ealing, North, that we are not taking up the right attitude towards the Communist Government of China, and that we are not justified in inflicting pinpricks. We have to remember that the Chinese are entitled to patriotic feelings, too. What would the hon. and gallant Mem-

ber for Macclesfield say if the Chinese were in the Isle of Wight?

Air-Commodore Harvey: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever visited Hong Kong? I lived there for a number of years, and my impression was that the majority of the Chinese were very glad that Hong Kong was in British hands. Moreover, it has been noticeable in the last year that people keep their money there, and that tens of thousands—hundred of thousands—of Chinese come as refugees to Hong Kong and are glad that it is in British hands.

Mr. Hughes: I do not know whether the British colony in Hong Kong is entitled to speak for the great majority of the people in Hong Kong. However, I am trying to get the hon. and gallant Gentleman to put himself in the position of patriotic Chinese. Geographically speaking, Hong Kong is related to China in the same way as the Isle of Wight is related to Britain. The Chinese see in Hong Kong what they regard as a foreign Power.
I quite agree that the Chinese have everything to gain by retaining Hong Kong as a trading centre, and I believe that the Chinese have everything to gain by retaining their commercial association with the people of this country; but from the trading point of view I do suggest that a trade agreement with the Chinese People's Government would be immensely more valuable than trying to pretend that, in the event of a world war, we could possibly hold the Island of Hong Kong against the Chinese, when we could not hold it against the Japanese. That is the reality.
There has been expressed in this Debate a policy of pinpricks. Whether we like Communism in China or not, whether we like Communism in Russia or not, the fact is that it is there. It would be an immense undertaking, which this country could not afford, to let this cold war develop into a hot war. We cannot even contemplate the possibility of using Hong Kong in a war with the People's Government of China. I emphasise what was said by the hon. Member for Ealing, North—that we should in every way possible make it clear to the Chinese that we have abandoned the old fashioned policy of imperialism, that we have


abandoned it in India, and that we are going to abandon it in China. When the Chinese understand that, a way will be open for peace and understanding between the two peoples, as the people of goodwill in all countries earnestly desire, and as they also desire an end to the cold war and its frightful possibilities.

2.8 p.m.

Mr. Pargiter: The Debate seems, as was probably intended, to have gone very wide of the original subject. I do think that what has just been said by the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) should not go un-contradicted. Purely from the point of view of the Chinese people in Hong Kong, the worst thing that could happen would be for Britain to get out of Hong Kong. The Nationalist forces control an area of sea far around, and they have a fair number of aircraft, and Hong Kong would immediately become a focal point of attack by the Chinese Nationalist forces. There would be chaos. There would also be destruction of great British interests—apart altogether from imperialism—legitimate commercial interests that we have there, which, however they were built up, are of great importance to this country in the economic scheme of things.
But to go back to the main point. I really think that the argument is a little far fetched, that a few cases of aeroplanes and spare parts or something of the kind ought not to be permitted to go through because of their potential value to Russia. This really is carrying the argument to an absurd conclusion. We hear constantly complaints, apparently well founded, about the terrific aircraft industry that Russia has. The implication, that a few cases going through Hong Kong would be of material benefit to Russia, just does not hold water.
What is important is that we have recognised as the de facto Goernment—not the de jure Government—of China the Chinese Communist People's Government. I am satisfied that if we had adopted a different attitude to Russia in 1917, the affairs of Europe might have gone in a different mould. We do not want the same sort of thing to happen again. It is these prejudices that we are worried about. We have recognised the Chinese Government, as we have been obliged to, because it is the only efficient Government, and the best thing to do is

to be on the most friendly relations with them that we possibly can. If the Chinese people want it, it is their affair in the last analysis.
It may be argued that the Chinese Communist Government do not want to be friendly with us. We have a lot of sniping going on in Britain and in the House of Commons, and these things are obviously noticed by the Chinese people. It is not much good holding out the hand of friendship, with a fist clenched behind one's back. That is the sort of prejudice created by the type of controversial speeches which we hear against the Chinese People's Government. I think that it is wrong to regard Communist China as being entirely and necessarily within the sphere of influence of Russia. It will be if we continue, while pretending friendship, to act in an unfriendly manner. We have to do the best that we can. It is a pity that an issue which is relatively small has been raised in order to indicate that there is a good deal of prejudice against the present only real and legitimate Government in China.

2.12 p.m.

Mr. Paget: The hon. Member for Ayrshire South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) asked "How would we feel if the Isle of Wight was Chinese?" I should say that the answer would entirely depend upon the circumstances. If instead of having good-humoured controversy across the Floor of this House, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party were engaged in shooting each other up all over the country, and we had a number of wars between neighbouring constituencies, then I think that everybody in England would be grateful for an island where law and order was maintained, where people who wanted a little peace could find sanctuary, and where the essential trade of both sides could be provided for.
That is really the position of Hong Kong so far as China is concerned. In circumstances of anarchy, there has been a sanctuary of good order, a place where people whose lives were otherwise forfeit and would be like hunted beasts can live in peace, and where all the various areas of China can find an entry for their trade. I think that the general run of Chinese have every reason to be grateful for our long presence in Hong Kong. Let us remember


that this is not any recent thing. In fact my grandfather was a Governor of Hong Kong.
The next point which my hon. Friend made is, I think, an extremely varied one. There is no better way of arming Communists than by attempting to arm weak nationalist or semi-quisling organisations. I remember a good many years ago when we were sending arms to Nationalist China. I was a great deal interested to know how the arms got there. I was told by someone, whose name I shall not mention but of very good authority, that there was no difficulty about that at all—the arms went through the Japanese lines. I said, "Isn't that a little curious?" He said, "Not at all; the Japanese generals fully understand that generals must live, and they know that no Chinese general would be fool enough to use them against them." That was the sort of situation we had, and one which we do not want to repeat.

Air-Commodore Harvey: When was this?

Mr. Paget: This was about 1940, very shortly before the Japanese entered the war against us, when they were busy fighting the Chinese. I had it on good authority. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes, I will tell him privately where I got it.
With regard to this particular issue of the aeroplanes, I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has done a service by raising it. It is a very awkward situation indeed. It is awkward diplomatically. One has to weigh the considerations of a good many businesses of ours in China which we hope will survive. We have to weigh the importance of the rule of war. We have to weigh relations with America—all sorts of awkward questions—and I do not think that the situation is in the least improved by it being discussed here. I very much hope that the Minister will decline resolutely to say a word about these aeroplanes, because I do not think that a Government statement in this House on the subject, at this point, when the matter is before the courts in Hong Kong, can do anything but harm.
Finally, there is one thing which I think wants clearing up. It is again a statement by my hon. Friend below the Gang-

way which ought not go out unchallenged, and that is the statement that Hong Kong is indefensible; that we lost it to the Japanese and it is only a question of again losing it to the Chinese Communist. That, I am convinced, is quite untrue. The situation in defending Hong Kong when we have command of the sea and air superiority, even if it be a carrier-borne air superiority, is wholly different from an attempt to defend Hong Kong without either sea or air superiority.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Those are almost the same words that the commander who defended the garrison in Hong Kong used about 24 hours before Hong Kong surrendered.

Mr. Paget: However hopeless it may be to defend a citadel, any man whose duty it is to defend that citadel, has also the duty to say, "It is defensible and we are going to defend it." No serious-minded person the moment that the Pearl Harbour affair happened and sea power was lost in the Pacific, even thought that it was remotely possible to hold Hong Kong. On the other hand, when we have sea and air power there, I can only say that people who are in a very good position to know something about the defence of Hong Kong have told me that they have not the slightest doubt that they can hold it against any forces the Communists can put against it.
We all hope that we shall be able to settle down with the Chinese and that they will not in fact come under Russian domination, that it will be a Chinese Communism which will probably develop on quite different lines to European Communism, and that it will be possible to get decent neighbourly relations. We shall not immediately, but we hope that it will settle down on those lines, and that there will not be any war. But do not let it go out from here that we have any doubt at all that we can hold Hong Kong if there is a war, because all the information I have received is that we can.

2.20 p.m.

Mr. Mack: I have not the knowledge of or associations with Hong Kong, of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), but there is one point which ought to be made very clear, particularly from


this side of the House, in respect to the very delicate situation which prevails there at this time. However sincere individuals may be, it is highly undesirable, and indeed untrue, to suggest that the British Government, or for that matter the British people, have imperialistic designs on Hong Kong or any other part of the world. That kind of propaganda, magnified and distorted, as it indeed would be in various parts of the world, would do incalculable harm, not only to this country but also to the future peace of the world.

Mr. Braine: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Communists have imperialistic designs upon Malaya, and that the situation in Malaya cannot in any way be divorced from the situation now under discussion? Does not that affect his whole argument?

Mr. Mack: I do not want to be drawn into that, because any attempt at this moment to criticise another Power, with whom I hope we may enter into early and protracted negotiations about the peace of the world, might exacerbate the situation—whatever may be our individual thoughts—and might indeed prove unhelpful. The point I want to make is a positive one: that as far as the British in Hong Kong are concerned, it is the policy of our Government, not only to have harmonious relations with the coloured and native peoples all over the world, but also to enter into association with them for the mutual benefit of this country and themselves, on the basis of trade and of improving their general standard of life and conditions. That is reciprocal, and will not only confer good upon them, but will also help our own country.
The policy of the Government in many places—in India for example—has been far-seeing and admirable. At one fell swoop we gave to 400 million Indian people the right to be independent, and at the same time of their own volition to come into the Commonwealth—a stroke which I think history will confirm as one of the grandest and finest gestures any Government could have made, and which will be entirely vindicated with the passage of time.
As to the Chinese people, it is a moot question to what degree a country like China, with perhaps 400 or 500 million

people, backward mechanically and scientifically, would be susceptible to Communist propaganda. The fact remains that, this Government, and indeed public opinion in this country outside the Government, have taken a realistic view of the situation, and decided to recognise at any rate the present Communist Government of China, not on the basis of their Communism, but on the basis of the situation—namely, that they are there—J'y suis, j'y reste. We must recognise that.
On the other hand, I have seen in some weekly papers criticisms of our good friends the United States in respect of the help they are alleged to have given to General Chiang Kai-shek, who I understand has his headquarters in Formosa. There were criticisms—I do not know to what extent they were justified—that the General was using American aid or money, or hoped to, for the purpose of bombing helpless Chinese. That is a question upon which we have not a lot of information. Whatever sympathies there may be in this House for General Chiang Kai-shek, he is no longer a potent force; and, whether we like it or not, we must recognise the facts as they are—that almost a quarter of the people of the world, are under a form of Government which has been largely established throughout the whole of China.
I do not often share the opinions of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton, but for once in a while I agree with him that there seems to be no immediate cause for pessimism because a preponderance of Chinese people have one form of Government, and that jutting out like a peninsula—I am not sure of the exact geographical description of Hong Kong—

Air-Commodore Harvey: It is an island.

Mr. Mack: Well, it is almost a peninsula. In any case, it is immediately off the shore of China, with two or three crowded millions of people in a very small area. Because there is Communism on the mainland, it does not follow that they will necessarily pounce upon and devour the people of Hong Kong. I do not think that will happen, any more than because we have not seen eye to eye with the Government of Franco the Spanish Government will take over


the whole of Gibraltar and claim it, as many of the more ardent and enthusiastic Falangists have suggested.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the whole basis of recognition should be reciprocal? If we recognise de jure the Communist Government of China because it is, as he says, a potent force, is it not time that the Communist Government of China accorded similar recognition to His Majesty's Government as a potent force?

Mr. Mack: I hope that will come, although it may be a little belated. I am not sure whether at the moment we have accorded them de jure recognition.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Yes, on 6th January.

Mr. Mack: In that case I share the hon. Gentleman's hope that we shall get from them an equally friendly and practical gesture in return, with this object: that trading interests—let us use the phrase not euphemistically, but in the higher connotation of the term—which are the life-blood of mankind, and good will in the Far East, and in other parts of the world, would be heightened by the fact that the Government of China, whatever its complexion, was sufficiently realistic to appreciate that it is in her interests as much as Britain's to have this trade going on.

Mr. Braine: What is the use of talking about practical, friendly gestures at a time when His Majesty's forces are locked in bitter struggles with Communist forces in some other part of the British Commonwealth?

Mr. Mack: That has no connection with the situation in Hong Kong. There are other factors obtaining there.

Mr. Braine: With the greatest respect, I would say that it has the closest connection, since the aircraft spares in question, which have been referred to in the course of this Debate, may very well be used—it is, of course, hypothetical—to carry on the hot war in some other place in the Far East.

Mr. Mack: In that extremely unlikely event the Government would have the support of the nation in defending them-

selves against any aggression of that type, particularly if it were unwarranted. No one questions that. But I do not intend to make confusion worse confounded by hypotheses or complexities which may or may not arise in a part of the world which has not got the blessed restrained and calm mentality which governs most Members of this honourable House. What the hon. Member suggests is, of course, always a possibility, but on the bigger issue raised by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine), who has shown an alacrity to interpose, I would say that public opinion is veering round to the idea that sooner or later, in the interests of world peace—which is the predominating and vital factor—the heads of the nations concerned will have to get together at the highest level for the purpose of finding some solution.

Mr. Foster: "Stunt."

Mr. Mack: Well, very often a point of view which is put forward at a carefully timed and strategic moment—suddenly thrust forward, as it were—may have an ulterior motive, apart from the intrinsic merit of the proposal. On the broad issue that the people in high authority should get together for the purpose of making more secure the peace of the world, I think most intelligent people, in these islands at any rate, would be in accord. The part that Britain can usefully play would be to do all she can, consistent with her legitimate and rightful interests, in seeing that peace is maintained between the leading Powers of the world, for if we do not take that point of view it is quite obvious we must throw up our hands in utter despair and disavow our faith in mankind.
On the other hand, I do not necessarily take that pessimistic point of view. We should be eternally vigilant and bear in mind all these complexities, but at the same time, if we spread the idea that all Communists must necessarily be wicked and evil, that they are people who cannot be trusted, and that everything anti-Communist must, by the same process of reasoning, be pure, unalloyed and sincere, then I think we are overstating the case on both sides. I am not a Communist although I have been wrongly accused of being tarnished by that creed. I recognise, however, that sooner or later there are Members in this House who


will be very pleased to enter into negotiations with Communists to ensure a respite, at any rate, from the present intolerable position.
I do not claim any particular knowledge, unlike other. Members whose faculty of self-appreciation is inordinately well-pronounced and often in inverse ratio to their knowledge of the subject but I have endeavoured to put a point of view, in a very humble capacity, that is worthy of consideration and may commend itself to a few enlightened people, whom we hope still exist in this confused world. We have to get down to this matter instead of scoring cheap debating points. The issue is above party. It is an issue for mankind, an issue for the future, and an issue for the whole world to take seriously to heart.

2.31 p.m.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. John Dugdale): This Debate has covered a very wide field, and it is right that it should, being an Adjournment discussion, but I am afraid that I do not intend to stray into all the topics that have been raised. I do not intend, for instance, to discuss at great length the question of Prestwick or whether Hong Kong or the Isle of Wight is an island or a peninsula. On the general question, I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has expressed most admirably the reasons why it is essential that we should remain in Hong Kong, and why it is desirable that we should remain there. I will only say that the Government have never at any time, and do not contemplate now, leaving Hong Kong. There is no question whatever about that.
The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) said that the departments in Hong Kong had carried out their duties in a negative way. That is not so. They have carried them out in a strictly judicial way and have not tried to be on one side or the other, and it is right that that should be so. The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) said that they had made friendly gestures to the Communists. That is totally untrue. They have made no more friendly gestures to them than to the American companies. They have been perfectly fair on both sides.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I certainly never said that the judicial authorities in Hong Kong had made friendly gestures to the Communists. I was joining issue on whether it was wise for the Government to continue to make friendly gestures to the Communists when they were not reciprocating.

Mr. Dugdale: I am very glad to hear that.
The hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) said that we must keep these aeroplanes from the Russians. I gather that he thought that this was our principal duty. I am surprised to hear that coming from him as a lawyer, because I think our principal duty is the vitally important one of preserving something which we in England and the British Empire are very proud of, and that is the rule of law. We think that is of vital importance, even in such a matter as the cold war, because if it once becomes known that the rule of law in this country does not matter, that people do not mind about it and are abrogating it, it will be a major loss apart from any other losses.
The hon. Member for Windsor said the question of whether these planes were military or civil was splitting hairs. I submit that it is not. It is very important that these are civil planes and not military planes. I have no doubt that any aeroplane can be used to drop something out of it, but all Members will agree that there is a fundamental difference between civil and military aeroplanes. Not only is that so, but the law deals with the export of ammunition and arms, and civil planes do not come into that category.
I think it might be as well, in view of the discussion that has taken place, if I were to give a purely factual statement as to the situation regarding these aeroplanes. Some 70 civil aircraft have been grounded at Kai Tak aerodrome in Hong Kong for the last four months. They have been the subject of litigation in the courts of the Colony between certain employees of the China National Aviation Corporation and Central Air Transport, a department of the Chinese Government, and persons representing the interests of the Chinese People's Government, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, persons representing the interests


of the Chinese Nationalists and certain United States interests who, on 12th December, which is since the proceedings were begun, signed a contract with the then Chinese Government purporting to purchase all the Corporations assets. The employees, since the commencement of the proceedings, have been in physical possession of the aircraft on the airfield. They claim to hold them on behalf of the Chinese Government.
Injunctions restraining both sides from removing the aircraft were imposed by the courts, but these injunctions were lifted following a ruling by the courts on 23rd February that the property was in the possession and control of the Chinese People's Government, and that it would be a violation of the immunity of a foreign sovereign power to make an order directing that the property in its possession and control should be delivered over to a receiver appointed by the courts. The courts based this finding on the fact that the aircraft were in the physical control of employees who declared that they held them on behalf of the Chinese People's Government and accepted orders from high officials of that Government.
Since then, an appeal against the courts' decision has been lodged by the side representing the Chinese Nationalists and United States interests, and the hearing has been fixed for 28th April. In the meantime, the aircraft are still at Hong Kong. Applications for further injunctions against their removal were refused by the Hong Kong court on 28th March. That is the position at present. The Government have no intention of taking any steps in this case, beyond those designed to ensure that their obligations under the Hong Kong law and the Chicago Convention of International Civil Aviation, as well as under international law in general, are complied with. It would be highly improper for the Government to make any attempt to influence the Hong Kong courts in regard to a matter under consideration by them, or to take any executive action which could be justifiably interpreted by either side as partial.
The situation in regard to these aircraft is, I understand, one that is entirely without precedent. There has never been anything remotely resembling

it before. They are affected by the Chicago Convention and the Air Navigation Orders of Hong Kong. So complex is this question that we are taking legal advice, and until that legal advice has been given we are not absolutely certain as to the exact interpretation of this extremely complicated matter. We feel that it would be improper to do anything other than leave the situation as it is now, and that is that the aeroplanes and the equipment shall remain subject to the decision of the courts on 28th April. If we do that, we consider we shall be doing our best to maintain the rule of law, and that is the most important aspect of the whole case.

Air-Commodore Harvey: The hon. Gentleman has told us that the equipment remains. Will he explain what he means by that, because the equipment in aircraft and spare parts has already in part been shipped away?

Mr. Dugdale: I think I said that we should leave the question of the ownership of the equipment and the spare parts to be determined finally when the matter comes before the courts on 28th April.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Did not His Majesty's Government anticipate that some such situation as this would arise since the general situation in China has deteriorated? Everyone knew that the aircraft were there, and it would not have been very difficult to forecast that the problem of their ownership might well arise? Why is it that it is only at the eleventh hour that His Majesty's Government are now taking legal advice? What is the actual position in what is clearly a technical and very complicated business?

Mr. Dugdale: This does not only apply to His Majesty's Government. It might have been realised by both sides that this question might arise. It was not realised apparently, and the situation was allowed to drift on. It would have been very much better if it had been realised at an early date, but that was not the case with either of the parties concerned. As regards His Majesty's Government taking legal advice, this is a matter which has to be carefully, slowly and deliberately considered, and we are, in fact, taking opinion on it. We hope in due course when we have the complete opinion to be able to come to a definite decision as to the future course of events.

Major Beamish: I should like to ask the Minister to clear up one point on which he did not express himself very well. It relates to this question of the aircraft spares and stores. I understood from what he said that the aircraft would be remaining on Hong Kong Island until some further decision was taken by the courts. But he did not make it clear whether these spares and valuable stores are going to be shipped away, partly by the Communists. Perhaps the Minister would completely stay further activity on the aircraft and stores until some decision has been taken as a result of the legal advice now being sought.

Mr. Dugdale: I did not say that, and what I want to make clear is that if, in fact, the court has refused to give an injunction to restrain the parties from removing either aeroplanes or spares it would be wrong for His Majesty's Government to go against that decision and keep them forcibly when the court has said that they should not, in fact, be so kept.

Mr. J. Foster: I think the Minister said that the planes remain the subject of the decision of the court, and I understand he meant by that that the aeroplanes could be flown out tomorrow morning with any spares, because although they remain subject to the court, they do not have to remain in Hong Kong to be subject to the decision of the court. With respect to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish)—

Mr. Paget: On a point of Order.

Mr. Speaker: There cannot be two points of Order.

Mr. Paget: That matter being raised by the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) is not a point of Order.

Mr. Foster: Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that these planes could legally be flown out tomorrow morning?

Mr. Paget: On a point of Order. Surely that is the very question which you, Mr. Speaker, ruled out of Order earlier. This is the very point which is sub judice, and which you ruled ought not to be considered.

Mr. Speaker: I really do not know. I am not a lawyer, but the Minister can tell us if it is out of Order or not.

Mr. Dugdale: I should have thought it was sub judice. I also am not a lawyer, but that point really concerns whether or not we go against the injunction of the court. If, in fact, the court have stated that they have refused to give an injunction, in so far as the court is involved in this, that is a matter which I should have thought was sub judice. However, not being a lawyer, I cannot say with certainty though I would have supposed it was. I should not like to mislead the House.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Is the position that the aircraft plus the spare parts can be flown out tomorrow?

Mr. Foster: Yes.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Is the legal position that the aircraft can be flown out of Hong Kong into Communist territory? If that is the position, then what the right hon. Gentleman has really told the House is that His Majesty's Government took legal advice too late. Whatever the legal advice is or whatever the courts decide, once the aeroplanes are physically in possession of the Communists in China, there would not be any question of their return.

Mr. Dugdale: In fact, these planes have remained in Hong Kong for a considerable time, and have not been removed. There is every possibility that they will continue to remain there, just as they have remained during the course of the past weeks. We have had legal proceedings going on for a considerable: period, and during all that time the planes have remained there. I think we can take it that they will continue to remain.

Orders of the Day — GENERAL ELECTION ARRANGEMENTS

2.48 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: I wish now to bring the House home from Hong Kong and to raise quite a different subject—the working in England and Wales of the electoral law at the General Election. I am sure that all concerned, including the Home Office and especially the Secretary of State, who I know took


a great personal interest in this matter, and also the officers of local authorities and the Service Departments, worked very hard on this, and in many ways they were successful in spite of the many difficult problems with which they were confronted. I should like to pay tribute to them. However, the fact remains that the registration of electors was far from complete. A great many people who were qualified to vote failed, whatever the cause, to get on the register. The figures of the poll showed an exceptional keenness at this election to vote, and the disappointment of those who found that they were not on the register was correspondingly deep.
First of all, I want to deal with the registration of ordinary civilians. As the House is aware, the responsibility rests on the householder to fill up the form which is distributed from house to house. From these forms the electoral lists, which are a sort of a draft register, are prepared. It is the further duty of every citizen to make sure that his name is on the register, and it is only by an inspection of these electoral lists that the risk of disfranchisement can be avoided. The electoral registration officer is required to announce where these lists can be inspected, and this system is excellent in theory, but in practice at the recent election certain rather serious defects were manifested.
The lists were too complicated; there were not enough facilities for inspection; and there was not enough publicity about the whole matter. First, the electoral lists were too complicated. Every list was in three parts—A, which was the previous register; B, which were the names to be added; and C, which were the names to be deleted. A great many people did not understand that only by examining all three lists, or at any rate lists A and B, could they find out whether they were on the new register. There was indeed confusion, not only in the minds of the electors, but even among postmasters and others who were required to exhibit the lists. The Home Office realised that there was this confusion, and they actually sent out a circular suggesting that names on list C should be crossed out with pen and ink on list A. Some electoral registration officers did so, but others found that the work required was too great.
I suggest that there is a strong case for scrapping the system of three lists and for combining them into one list, which would be a complete draft of the new register. For the benefit of party organisations, new arrivals who are on list B should be specially marked with an asterisk or otherwise.
There would be several advantages in having a single list instead of three lists. The first would be that the citizen would have to consult only one list. The second would be that, after the claims and objections had been disposed of, it would take much less time to print the final register than it takes, under the present system, to weld lists A, B and C into one. Under that system there is at the same time the risk that lines or even whole sections may be accidentally dropped out. The third advantage of having a single list would be that because of the shorter time required for printing the final register, the time for claims and objections could be extended. One other detail about the electors' lists is that it was left to electoral registration officers' discretion whether to have an index of streets. It is absolutely essential that the register of a town, be it large or small, should have an index of streets.
The second point that I want to make about the electoral lists is that there were not enough facilities for inspecting them. The law requires that the lists shall be exhibited in a specified place. That place is usually the post office, but in some localities the post office is not at all convenient for that purpose. Very often the postmaster is busy and the post office is too crowded. In one important post office in London it took 10 minutes to get to the head of the queue at the counter, and then one was told that the electors' lists were kept in the safe. The postmaster had to be fetched, and that took a few more minutes. When he brought the list out of the safe he had not the slightest idea how to find his way about it. I suggest that in addition to post offices, town halls and council offices, electors' lists ought to be available in all libraries and citizens' advice bureaux, and possibly in other places as well.
My last point about the electors' lists is that there is not enough publicity about them. There was an admirably lucid advertisement by the Home Office, headed "Make Sure of Your Vote." The


advertisement issued by electoral registration officers was far too legalistic. Let me quote one sentence from each of those advertisements to show what I mean. The Home Office advertisement gave this advice about electors' lists:
Go and see, and if your name is not there ask for a claim form.
Anybody could understand that. Now listen to this from an advertisement issued by electoral registration officers:
A claim to be registered as a Parliamentary or local government elector, or both, or to be registered for a qualification other than that shown in the lists, may be made by any person either on his own behalf or on behalf of another person.
I am quite sure that many of my constituents and many people in every constituency would find it a little difficult to understand all that. Why should not the form of the announcement issued by electoral registration officers, which is laid down in the registration regulations, be in language as simple as that of the Home Office advertisement?
Of course, the B.B.C. is far and away the best method of reminding electors of their responsibilities. What use was made of the B.B.C.? I obtained the facts from them. The facts are that all through the month of June when the forms were being distributed from house to house and when electors were filling them in—the qualifying date was 10th June, and this register was, of course, the one upon which the General Election was fought—there was not one single broadcast until the very last day, 30th June. That was quite inadequate. The broadcasts ought to have begun when the forms began to be sent out at the end of May, especially as it was 10 years since the register had been compiled in this way. During the time for claims and objections, which was in August, there were seven broadcasts. That was better, but some of them were rather late. These figures compare very unfavourably with recent B.B.C. broadcasts on the changes in the wavelengths, of which there were more than 100 separate announcements on the air. I hope that the Home Office will arrange for many more broadcasts next winter, when the compilation of the new register begins.
Now I come to the Service voter—and I express my appreciation of the presence of the Under-Secretary of State for War. On 22nd March, the Minister of Defence

made the staggering admission that only one in three of those entitled to the Service vote were on the register at the General Election. The Minister said that there was some improvement in the register which was issued a few days ago, but even on that register fewer than half of those qualified are included. Therefore, if the General Election comes, as come it well may, within the next 12 months, that is to say, before 15th March next, large numbers of Service men who, I am quite sure, will want to vote, will find themselves unable to do so. Considering all the attention given by Parliament itself, and the instructions issued by the Service Departments, on this matter, those figures are extremely disappointing. They are all the more disappointing because the Committee on Electoral Registration which reported three years ago, in Cmd. 7,004, of 1946, expressed the confident opinion that effective machinery could be provided for the registration of all members of the Forces. Machinery which aims at registering 100 per cent. and only achieves 33 per cent. or 50 per cent. is quite clearly not effective.
What is wrong? I make three criticisms, and I think each one of them is constructive. First, the Committee pointed out that most National Service men complete their service before they are 21 and so the Committee directed its main attention to the long-service men, the voluntary entrants. They recommended that these men should be asked to register, and also to appoint proxies at the very moment of enlistment at the recruiting station, even if they were not yet 21 then. They went so far as to say that such an arrangement would be practically certain in application. Unfortunately, this recommendation of the Committee was not carried out. Men are asked to register not at the recruiting station when they join, but at their first unit, and clearly this does not work. I ask that the question of doing it at the moment of enlistment, as the Committee recommended, should be reconsidered.
My second criticism is of the elaborate notices sent to the Fighting Services to be exhibited on notice boards. I referred a day or two ago to an Admiralty Fleet Order, issued for display on the notice boards of ships and naval stations, which consists of 12 closely printed pages and


something like 10,000 words. Is it conceivable that anybody, whether he be an officer or a rating, would ever try to read a 10,000-word notice on a notice board? One might just as well stick up on the board a copy of the Representation of the People Act, 1949. Of course, one effect of issuing such a notice is that commanding officers are tempted to believe that that is all that is necessary. I suggest that, if a notice is required at all, it should be as simple a notice as the Home Office advertisement which I praised just now.
My third point about the Service vote is that the responsibility for trying to persuade men to register is, rightly, put on the commanding officer. Indeed, commanding officers are absolutely deluged, saturated, with reams of instructions on how to do it. Among the instructions issued from the War Office is one requiring each unit commander to furnish annually—it was twice a year; now I suppose it is annually—a certificate that the procedure laid down has been carried out. A certificate in such terms is obviously of little or no value. It is on wrong lines. One might just as well ask a commanding officer to give a certificate that he had done his duty.
What is required, I suggest, is not a certificate in general terms like that, but a precise statement of the men over 21 who have registered and who have not registered. It would be a simple matter to arrive at these figures, because every soldier who is registered is required to carry in his pay book—his A.B.64—the card R.P.F.3 which he receives from the registration officer notifying him that he has in fact been registered. I believe that the other Services get the same card. I suggest that it should be an obligation on every unit commander to report these two totals—the number registered and the number not registered—and that we would then have healthy competition between units, which I am quite sure would secure a much higher proportion of registrations.
I have dealt with only two aspects of the electoral law, but I hope other hon. Members will refer to others, since there are a good many further points which require investigation. There is, for instance, the use of official poll cards, which is a new

system. There is the method of officially marking the ballot paper, which I am sure is necessary but which could be improved. There is the fact that, at many rural police stations, there is no policeman there either for any part of the day or for the greater part of it, and, while I will not say that that situation produces corrupt practices, it certainly makes them easier. An effort ought to be made to call up special constables for polling day so that there might be a policeman in every polling station throughout the day. Then, there are the methods of counting the votes, and the queer fact that a man taking a compulsory holiday in one of His Majesty's prisons is entitled to vote by post while a man taking a voluntary holiday at the seaside is not. That seems to me to require investigation.
I suggest that there is a very good case for setting up a committee, on which this House ought to be represented, to investigate the working of every aspect of the electoral arrangements, including the major question of making the register more complete. I know perfectly well, and I am sure we shall be told by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, that there is, in fact, a conference now in being, but I think that less than a committee containing representatives of this House would not be adequate, and that is particularly true of the arrangements for the Service voter. I therefore ask that such a committee should be appointed without delay. The British people have shown that they value very highly the right to vote, and they will be satisfied with nothing less than the very best electoral machinery.

3.8 p.m.

Mr. Marlowe: I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) in expressing the view that the electoral register upon which the last General Election was fought showed a large number of defects and proved far from satisfactory. I think this House ought to consider in what respects it is possible to remedy that situation and prevent it recurring. Although it is true that any election fought this year will be on a different register from that on which the last election was fought, so far as one is able to see, the same defects exist in ale March register as existed in the preceding one.
Each of us can only speak from our own experience in these matters, but, certainly, during the General Election, my central committee rooms were literally stormed by hundreds of people who were complaining that they were not on the electoral register. I suppose it may seem churlish for one who had a majority of nearly 22,000 to be complaining about the electoral register, but it is a matter upon which people feel very strongly when they have not got the right to vote to which they are entitled. In my constituency, this matter was not limited to my offices, because both my Socialist and Liberal opponents had the same experience and had a large body of complaints from people who claimed that they ought to have been on the register but were not. It is our job to ensure that that kind of situation does not arise again.
I agree with my hon. Friend that not enough publicity was given to the public to get themselves on the register or to see that they were on it. It must, of course, be said that the ultimate responsibility for seeing that one is included in the register is on the elector himself, but he must be given some assistance by those concerned in drawing it up. The publicity about this matter was rather poor. In May last year a number of forms were sent out, all, I think, before 31st May. Each person receiving a form was required to state upon it the names of the people who would be in the house on a date ahead. To begin with, that was a great mistake. One ought to be asked to give the names of the people who were in the house on a date just passed.
It was psychologically bad, because a large number of people were not sure who would be in their house on a certain date ahead and were inclined to put the form on one side saying that they would leave it until they knew who would be in the house on that date. Once a form is put on one side, it usually finds its way into the wastepaper basket, particularly today because of the large number of forms with which the public is inundated. There are so many forms that there was a general tendency to regard this one as just one more form and it was probably treated in the same way as many others are. Not enough attention was paid to bringing to the consciousness of the electorate their duty to ensure that the form was completed.
It should not be difficult to give enough publicity to a matter of this kind. Organisations like the Central Office of Information spend between £3 and £4 million a year of public money in order to give a lot of information which nobody requires. Would it not be a good idea to divert a little of that money and energy towards giving publicity to the requirements of the Representation of the People Act? The Ministry of Food spend a large sum of money daily putting in the newspapers "Food Facts" advertisements which are supposed to help the housewives. Why not have a few advertisements dealing with electoral facts? A fraction of the money spent by the Ministry of Food could be spent by the Home Office in giving that kind of information to the public.
Another aspect of the matter which ought to be investigated is the machinery after the form has been sent out. The form is sent to every known address. Frequently it is lost, thrown away or put into the wastepaper basket, and in many cases nothing more happens after that. Every form which is sent out and not returned should be followed up by some means. When the electoral registration officer compiles his first register he ought to have the responsibility of also going through a list of the names of people to whom forms have been sent so that in cases where the form has not been returned he may send another reminder or even—it would not be asking too much—make a personal canvass. That should not be very difficult when one recalls that in the old days the whole of the electoral register was the result of personal canvass. It is not too much to ask that merely the nil returns should be followed up by a personal canvass. They would represent probably 5 to 10 per cent. of the forms, and it should not be a grave undertaking.
There is another form of what I call "follow up" that might be adopted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham pointed out, a certain amount of rather ineffective publicity is used to draw the attention of the electorate to the need to inspect the register to see if their names are on it. It would not be too much to extend that field of publicity. It would not be too much, in a whole constituency, if a small card were sent to all who had received the original form


notifying them that the register was on view and that they had a duty to inspect it and see that their name was included. I hope the hon. Gentleman will consider that a helpful and not expensive suggestion. No doubt a lot of people, including even those who have filled in and returned the form, assume that matters go forward all right after that. But it by no means works out that way. The attention of these people ought to be drawn personally to the necessity of inspecting the register.
I have asked a series of questions in the House about another matter, but the Home Secretary's answers have not been to my satisfaction so far. That matter is the state of the present register which, as I said earlier, shows every indication of being no better than the last one. I am sure we are all in agreement that we want the best register possible. Already, I have had a number of complaints from people who realise now that they are not on the current register. The reason why this information comes to light now is that a large number of people, who otherwise would not have concerned themselves, had this brought to their notice when the General Election came along. Now in March, when it is too late to make any changes, they have gone and looked; and they complain that they are not on the register. I have suggested to the Home Secretary that he should allow the list to be re-opened for a limited time, say a month or so, and that during that time strenuous publicity should be given to the fact that the register is open and that those who find their names have been left out should have their names included even at this late hour.
There is a very strong case for that in view of the decision to abolish the register which was due to be published in October. Now the register which came into force on 15th March will continue in force until the middle of March next year, and we all know there is every probability, and certainly a high degree of possibility, of an election taking place before then. We want to be sure that the register is effective in expectation of a coming election. I have put this matter to the Home Secretary in Questions on a number of occasions. I have not found his answers very convincing. He has said

that he does not see there is a case for it. I hope he will reconsider it and that the hon. Gentleman who replies will deal with the matter.
I think the case is very strong. The recent General Election has made an enormous number of people aware of the right to have the register examined. I see no objection whatever to giving them an opportunity to have their names included now, provided they satisfy the registration officer that they have the right qualification. I am not suggesting that there should be some new qualification and that names not qualified for inclusion last year should now be included on some other register. All I propose is that an elector should be able to go to his town hall and if he satisfies the people in authority there that he has a right to have his name included in the register and that for some reason or other it has been omitted, he ought now even at this late hour to have his name included.
I hope the Minister will think it is a comparatively small request which can easily be met by the Home Office without any great effort on their part, but one which is of immense importance to the elector concerned. There is nothing more frustrating to an elector to find when an election comes along that he is in fact disfranchised, and that although he has every right to vote he is prevented from doing so. It is particularly frustrating to him when he finds that when the time comes for him to vote there is a Socialist Government in power and he has not got the right to get rid of them.

3.21 p.m.

Mr. Henry Usborne: I hope the House will forgive me if I raise a subject which is quite different from that which was before the House up to a moment ago—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I think that as a Private Member, on an Adjournment Motion such as this, I may raise any subject that I wish.

Mr. Keeling: Would not the hon. Gentleman wait until the Minister has replied on the subject which I have raised?

Mr. Usborne: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I must ask for your guidance. As you will recall, I did tell you in advance what subject I wished to


discuss. Of course, it may be that it would be convenient to the House if the Minister replied to the previous subject first.

Mr. Speaker: I was not quite sure whether I had mistaken the hon. Members' intentions. When he got to his feet, I thought he wanted to speak on the subject which is now before the House. I cannot tell any Member not to talk, but I suggest that if the hon. Member wishes to raise another subject he might do so later.

3.22 p.m.

Mr. Daines: It seems to me that this subject which has been raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) is bound to be considered against the background of the very high percentage of votes cast at the last election. I think most of us would say that the most satisfactory part of the election was the high percentage of the poll and the fact that we were personally returned.

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Gentleman will realise, of course, that that percentage is in relation to the number of names on the register. There is an enormous number of names which were not on the register.

Mr. Daines: I was going on to say, before I was interrupted, that we must not let that fact blind us to the actual working of the Act, and we should carefully scrutinise the details, as we have done this afternoon. I am personally obliged to the hon. Member for Twickenham for raising this subject and giving us that opportunity.
One of the points which the hon. Member raised related to constituents who vote from His Majesty's gaols. I am not unsympathetic to those people. Fortunately or unfortunately, I receive a regular correspondence from His Majesty's gaols. I think it is within the knowledge of the House that under a new regulation made by the Home Secretary a prisoner can write to his Member of Parliament, and some of my constituents who are in His Majesty's gaols have become extremely keen on penal reform. It is not unnatural that they should wish to judge from my replies whether I am a suitable person to give voice to their reasonable or unreasonable demands.
Personally, I am not at all upset about the small number of people who vote from His Majesty's gaols.
I am very dubious whether the enormous expense incurred in preparing and delivering the polling card has really been justified. When it was first mooted, most of us thought that it would relieve us of quite a big job in normal political organisation. In fact, I do not think it did that; I think it caused confusion. The law was extremely doubtful. In some constituencies replica polling cards were published and in others something approximating to replicas were sent out. I am rather doubtful whether this expenditure is worth while. It is certain that the amount of time, labour and expense incurred by returning officers is far greater than that incurred by tae candidates themselves under the old arrangements. It seemed to me that if we were to do the job through the returning officers, we should have permitted them to put the names of the candidates on the polling cards. There would then have been some real justification. I hope that the Home Secretary will take into consideration the views of the returning officers themselves on this matter, and I am quite certain that, after due allowance has been made for their inevitable hostility to having another job put upon them, in the main they will appreciate the point I make.
I have not been quite certain in my mind whether it would not be possible to put on the ballot papers the political description of the candidates. I know that there are a number of arguments for and against, but it is a fact that the number of people who wanted to vote for the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) certainly went wider than his own constituency. I will not try to persuade this House that the electorate of this country is politically ignorant; I do not think it is. I think we have as high a degree of political intelligence in this country as in any other country in the world—possibly higher; but, even now, the number of electors who have rather dim views about this question is striking.
I remember that during polling day one lady came to my main committee rooms to see whether her name was on the register. Fortunately it was, and naturally, my agent was a little concerned about how she was going to vote. After


all, we want everybody to vote, but it is much better if they vote for you than if they vote for the other chap. He asked her how she intended to vote and she said, "That is all right, old chap; you need not worry; I am going to vote for Daines, because we have to get this so-and-so Tory Government out." Thus, there is still a fair measure of political ignorance. I will admit it will not be easy to work out, but I should like to know whether it is practicable to put the political description of the candidate upon the ballot paper.
I turn now to the question of the counting of votes, and here I think I shall command general support. It is a point which does not seem to make sense. When those of us who were waiting in the small hours of the morning, and then in the very long hours, put on the radio, we found that constituencies much larger than our own, much more difficult and much more diverse, were announcing results hours before our own results were given. I submit to the Home Secretary or to the Under-Secretary, who I understand will reply, that the whole procedure of the counting of votes needs drastic overhaul.
I do not suggest that everybody should attain the speed of Salford. It is always very encouraging to look at the Salford result to see the barometer of what is going to happen. But there is no justification for the fact that almost twice the amount of time, in some cases three times, was taken in some constituencies. I believe, if I recall it correctly, that on one occasion even the result of a recount was announced before the results of constituencies of similar size. We do not need drastic uniformity, but this is not a leisurely age and, if for no other reason than that of putting the candidate out of his misery, I submit that there is a case for drastic revision and overhaul.

3.30 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: I do not think it is unfair to say that the party opposite count among their major virtues the fact that they are opposed to bureaucracy and red tape, so I noticed with amusement that one of the ways out of the dilemma of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) and of the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) was some more filling up of

forms. The hon. and learned Member for Hove wanted a card sent—

Mr. Marlowe: I did not for one moment suggest anything of the kind. I said nothing about filling up more forms. I suggested that a reminder might be sent, but I did not ask anybody to fill it up.

Mr. Keeling: Nor did I.

Mr. Wigg: Taking the two hon. Gentlemen in the order in which they interrupted me, I would point out that the hon. and learned Member for Hove suggested sending out—

Mr. Marlowe: A reminder.

Mr. Wigg: —a reminder, but that reminder has 40 be addressed, and some record of it has to be kept. If that is not form filling, it is a cousin to it. Then the hon. Member for Twickenham suggested that a return should be rendered—presumably, as it were, to brigade headquarters and thence to divisional headquarters and thence to the War Office, to be kept for posterity's information. If he does not think that is form filling, he does not know what goes on in the Army. It is certainly akin to it, I can assure him.
I should like to deal with one or two points that the hon. Member for Twickenham made. He was most anxious that responsibility for the registration of the Service voter should rest with the man's commanding officer.

Mr. Keeling: No.

Mr. Wigg: Not with the commanding officer?

Mr. Keeling: No, with the man.

Mr. Wigg: With the man, yes; but the responsibility for persuading the man should rest with the commanding officer. He went on to urge that this responsibility should be first exercised at the point where the man joins the Army—with the recruiting officer. But, the recruiting officer is not the man's commanding officer. The responsibility of-the commanding officer can be exercised only at the man's first unit.

Mr. Keeling: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as I pointed out in my speech, it was recommended by a com-


mittee on which were Service representatives that this should be done at the recruiting station?

Mr. Wigg: I have no doubt the committee made that recommendation. What I am pointing out is the fact that it is impracticable. It would take away the responsibility of the commanding officer. A man's documents and the man meet only at the first unit. Of course, the reason why the commanding officer is asked to give his personal certificate to a matter of this kind is so that it has his personal attention. If the procedure were—as I understand the hon. Gentleman would like it to be—that a return should be submitted, presumably on the first of each month—

Mr. Keeling: No.

Mr. Wigg: —showing the number registered and the number that remained unregistered, it would not get us much further than the adjutant, or the orderly room sergeant. For in a routine question it is extremely unlikely that the commanding officer gives the matter his personal attention. Certainly such a question would not get the same personal attention as it does when the commanding officer is required to give his personal certificate that the procedure which has been laid down has been carried out.
Of course, the real difficulty is this. The hon. Gentleman is obviously aware of it. We have to make up our minds whether the soldier shall be free to register or not. If we leave it to him, then clearly there is a limit to the amount of persuasion that can be exercised by the commanding officer. One has to face the fact that considerable numbers of young men are not specially interested in voting. When I was a young soldier we were qualified to vote, after the First World War, at the age of 18. I should have thought it would have taken a great deal of persuasion to get people to exercise the option to register, for a soldier thinks of his family and of his next weekend leave. Politics and a General Election seem rather a long way away from him. So I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has to accept the fact that, with all the good will in the world, and with the keenest desire of commanding officers to do what is required, we cannot expect that 100 per cent. will apply.
I want to turn now to the problem of what happens to those who register. I hope that the Under-Secretary will not accede to the request of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, but that he will let the registration system assimilate the proposals introduced at the last election. On the question of motor cars, there is obviously a great diversity of practice in the two parties. We knew that we were limited to one motor car for every two and a half thousand electors, and we thought that they would take people from their homes to the polling stations.
In my constituency, we were limited to 28 and beyond that we did not go, and each of those motor cars had a registration number. My political opponents apparently did not see it that way. We noticed that as polling day went on, they seemed to have more than 28 cars in use, but for some extraordinary reason, which we never understood, these motor cars, or many of them, did not draw up at the polling stations. The electors were inconvenienced by being dumped in back streets about 200 yards away from the polling stations. I hope that the Under-Secretary, when he replies, will indicate that the Home Office have this problem in mind. Elderly people in the hours of darkness should not be left to walk 200 yards to a polling station, it is not fair and it is not in the interest of democracy, and I hope that the Home Office will give serious attention to this last 200 yards' walk.

Mr. Daines: Was that before they voted, or after they voted?

Mr. Wigg: We could not quite tell. The congestion of cars in the back streets was really quite chronic, so we could not see if they were coming or going. I think that they were being deposited on the way to the poll. I want to congratulate the party opposite on a first-class piece of organisation—

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Gentleman is making a serious charge. Is he aware that if the facts that he has stated are true, his opponent has committed an electoral offence, and will he inform the House whether he has taken the appropriate proceedings in that respect?

Mr. Wigg: I have been most careful to make no charge of any kind. All I can say is that at certain polling stations,


from my own observation, cars were stopping 200 or 300 yards away from the polling stations. I do not know why, it may have been that they were going to tea parties or something of that sort. All I can say is that it appeared to be very odd that on polling night there should be such a great deal of social activity going on. They may not have had anything to do with the election. I do not know, but it is a point which the Home Office should look at. I think it is wrong that people should have to walk the last 200 or 300 yards to the polling stations.
I want to congratulate the party opposite on their organising efficiency. The night before last I thought they put up a pretty good show. The same sort of spirit was abroad in dealing with the absent voters' lists. I think they put up a pretty good show there. They took our boots off. I ask the Home Office if they will be good enough to look into this matter. At the present moment, the registration officer has the responsibility of publishing the absent voters' list. I want to see not only the absent voters' list published, but the names of the persons who sign the voters' application forms.
It seems to me extraordinary the ease with which some cards were signed, and one is not at all sure whether the people who signed them had such a close and intimate knowledge of the person applying for the absent vote as they ought to have. I am sure the Under-Secretary is aware that, as I understand it, under Regulation 26 of the Representation of the People Regulations, 1949, a registration officer must publish the absent voters' list. What I want, in the interests of democracy, is to have the reason for the person being placed on the absent voters' list to be shown, so that there shall be available some procedure whereby objections can be made. I am not at all sure how far that can be done by amending the Regulations, but I hope that it will be done.
The other point I want to make is this. The register in one part of my constituency was extremely good, but the register in another part was not so good. I think that if the register had been in better form the elections would have been

carried out much more smoothly—although I certainly have no complaints upon that score. However, I very much hope that the Home Office will take steps to see that one of the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Twickenham is carried out, and that is that there should be an index of streets so that one can see at a glance the streets which are covered by a particular section of the register.
I also hope that the Home Secretary will take steps to see that more polling stations are provided. This is the real answer to the motor car problem. Provision ought to be made so that anybody in reasonably good health can walk to the polling station without inconvenience. Stourbridge, a borough which came into the Dudley division for the first time in the last election, provided the extraordinary spectacle of people having to walk considerable distances and on their way to their polling station having to pass other polling stations. Now that is most annoying, and it need not happen if the organisation of the polling stations is examined. I know that the Home Secretary has powers to do something about this if the matter is not dealt with locally. I think that it can and should be dealt with locally, but I hope that the Home Office will use their good offices so that if, as I hope, a General Election comes very shortly the good people of Stourbridge will not have to walk these considerable distances.

3.43 p.m.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: In the few minutes that I shall detain the House I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in his, as I think, rather unfortunate innuendoes against his defeated opponent. I personally think that there is something which can be done about the postal voting form, although it appears on the face of it to some of us who are used to this sort of form to be in very simple language, and as if nothing could possibly go wrong with it. It transpired at the counting of the votes that there were a very large number of spoiled postal voting forms, for one small reason or another.
I therefore suggest that that instructions on the postal voting form should be printed in larger type, and with fewer words. I could myself have written out a similar instruction which meant


precisely the same thing, but with the use of a tenth of the number of words. What really counts is that the form should be in large black type, particularly the more relevant portion of it. It might help if the envelope in which the voting paper goes were the same colour as the voting paper, and to make the form which has to go into a khaki envelope of the same colour as that envelope. It sounds almost childish, but as we all know that is the kind of thing that went wrong with postal voting.
There is one matter I should like to raise, which is quite different from anything said so far. It concerns the advocacy by a certain group that people should spoil their voting papers if a satisfactory answer was not received from their candidate. Some of us were sent a questionnaire with the threat at the bottom that if the reply was not satisfactory the voter should write a certain slogan across the ballot paper, thereby spoiling it. I am very grateful that no one in my constituency, whether they agreed with my reply or not, did so deliberately.
I suggest to the Under-Secretary that he might look into this question and see whether something should not be done to prevent this. I know it is not possible to suggest legislation during this Debate, but there is an underlying danger here. In this case it came from a body with no great membership or power, but it might conceivably come from a body with far greater power. Everyone will agree, I think, that it is a thoroughly undemocratic procedure which should be deprecated, and that if it should become more widespread there should be some sanction against it.
In regard to the stamping of the papers with the embossed stamp, my experience is that it is not so effective as the perforated stamp. I do not know the reason for the change-over, but there is no doubt that polling clerks, in their endeavour to speed up the proceedings, tried to stamp about 12 papers at the same time, with the result that the embossing did not get through to a certain number of the ballot papers. There is a danger here, and it did so happen that many papers were spoilt owing to the fact that there was no stamp on them. I suggest that the embossing machine is inefficient and that perforation is better.
On the question of the Services vote, the Under-Secretary of State for War will agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) said, that the instructions issued to commanding officers are far too complex and numerous. There always has been a certain amount of apathy towards politics in the Services. There was a time when the Regular soldier had the feeling at the back of his mind that because he was not allowed to take an active part in politics he must not take any interest in the matter. Commanding officers really want to have their knuckles rapped if there is any evidence that they have been lax in their units in carrying out the instructions. I know that the matter is largely left in the hands of the adjutant and that the commanding officer does not bother about it, but I think that he should. I am not sure that there should not be a return of the actual figures of those registered, which would bring them up to the mark.

3.48 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): This discussion has been very helpful to us all. I could not help noticing that the two Members who spoke first were restrained and objective and expressed dissatisfaction with the registers, although in one case there was a majority of 13,000 and in the other of 22,000. I propose to deal with a number of points that have been raised, and then to say how we propose to study the many other points that have been made. The fact is that so many of the smaller points would require legislation that it would be out of order for me to deal with them.
It is perfectly true that the present system of the "A," "B" and "C" lists is complicated, and that many people who go to inspect the register to see if their names are on it are confused. Before the General Election, my right hon. Friend consulted representatives of the registration officers and the chief agents of the three parties and they all agreed that nothing could be done at the moment, the chief reason being the very heavy burden it would put on the printers. Within the next few weeks we shall be discussing again with these gentlemen the points that have been raised today, as well as possible suggestions to


do with the change in the "A," "B," and "C" lists.
We might come to the conclusion that we should have a completely revised register printed at the first stage rather than after the claims and objections period, and then print merely an amendment list of deletions and additions. Some of the advantages are that there would be only two documents to look at; the second document, the amended list, would be a small one; and, in the second list we could correct the typographical errors in the main register.
The publicity given to the lists once they have been made was another matter raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling), and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe). Post Offices are the most universal and obvious places for these lists to be. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Twickenham had such an experience at the Post Office as to find the list in the safe. It is extremely hard for the Postmaster-General to lay down any instructions in this matter. Post Offices vary from great big, modern buildings to little village shops. What we can do and what my right hon. Friend has done, is to ask the Postmaster-General to see if the lists can be displayed better and are more readily available to the public. That does not exhaust the point by any means.
The hon. Member suggested the Citizens Advice Bureaux and such places, but it would be wrong for Whitehall to tell the local registration officer where he has to put the lists. After all, local people know these things best. We are considering sending out a circular stressing the fact that registration officers should draw on their local knowledge, and in some cases use the church porch, or the Citizens Advice Bureau—

Mr. Keeling: And libraries.

Mr. de Freitas: Yes, the libraries or whatever is a good place for publicity. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Form C in the regulations we made last year, and said how legalistic was the language. He will be encouraged to know that my bight hon. Friend has given instructions that it is to be simplified.
As to the street index, I well remember when I was a canvasser before I was old enough to be a candidate what difficulties

I met without a street index. The fact is, of course, they are much more common today than they were at previous elections. It is difficult to say that they should be compulsory, because in certain cases in country areas it might be confusing if it were compulsory to have an index for streets. I do not want to labour that point. But it is one difficulty which we have to consider.
The hon. Member for Twickenham was good enough to give me notice that he was going to raise the matter of B.B.C. publicity. I am in some difficulty, because the information which I have is not the same as that which was given by the hon. Member. For the register on which the last election was fought, there was more publicity given at the compilation stage last Summer than there was at the stage of claims and objections, but the balance was still not sufficiently strong in the direction of publicity at the stage of compilation.
For the new register the publicity was as follows: at the stage of compilation last autumn there were mentions in three news bulletins, in one announcement period, as well as two talks on electoral registration and one talk by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. When the register was opened for challenge—claims and objections—last January, there were two announcements: one in "Woman's Hour," and one in "Can I Help You?" and another talk by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Nevertheless, we shall look into the matter, because this is the most valuable method of publicity—second to none.
On the point which was made about the Service voter I admit that the number of Service men who were entitled to vote and who registered was disappointing. The points that have been made will be noted and will be passed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, who is already having inquiries made in the Service Departments to see what can be done to improve the number of registrations. There has in fact been an improvement of about 20,000 between the register on which the General Election was fought and the current register. While I would not go as far as to say that the Service Departments are perfect in this matter, I submit that they have done a difficult job fairly well. They will seek to do it better, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has


pointed out, there is a considerable reluctance among young men to register.
Three particular points were made in this matter. The question which was raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham, and which was discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, whether volunteers should be asked to register at their recruiting office and not at their first unit, is noted, and some of the difficulties have been pointed out. Of course, the suggestion will be looked into. The second point about responsibility being put upon the commanding officer to complete a certificate and return it, will also be looked into.
On the third point, about the Admiralty's 10,000 word notice, I had advance information on this from the Question which was put the other day by the hon. Member. I looked at that notice myself, together with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. My hon. Friend assured me that a very much simpler notice, a potted version, will be issued next time because the present notice is too long and too difficult to read and understand. In defence of the Admiralty I must say that it was not the only thing that was done. Forms were issued to every rating and every divisional officer explained them to his men. The fact is that in the Navy 70 per cent. registered. I have said nothing to indicate that the Minister of Defence is satisfied with what was done. He is certain to do all he can to improve matters, and he has already started inquiries.
The other points made by hon. Members—I will come to them now—will be referred to the conferences that I mentioned. The hon. Member who asked for a committee wished to include hon. Members of this House. In the conferences which we have, the Home Secretary is in the chair, and there sit with him agents of the three parties, representative registration officers from various types of local authority areas such as counties and boroughs, together with officers of Departments directly concerned with the matter, such as the Home Office, the Scottish Office and the War Office.

It being Four o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment lapsed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Royle.]

Mr. de Freitas: This conference is well constituted for advising the Home Secretary on points such as those which have been put. I refer to the points about special constables; more constables in country districts; methods of counting; the question of the date being too far ahead; whether they follow up the nil returns, and the big point about the question of reopening the register.

Mr. Marlowe: Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that that point is still open to consideration?

Mr. de Freitas: Yes. The hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) made the point about polling cards. That, of course, will be considered. But on his point about the party label, I must say that I do not think he will get anywhere at all. It is, surely, the basis of our whole system that individuals and not parties are elected to this House. The practical side of putting on a party designation has great complications. It is possible in a country like the United States where, in the various States of the Union, the parties are established by law and a man cannot describe himself as a Democrat or a Republican unless he is one. How difficult it would be with us with all the shades of Liberals and Nationals and Conservatives. It would be difficult to arrive at a designation agreed and accepted by all concerned.
One of my hon. Friends also spoke about speeding up the count. It is difficult to lay down precise instructions, because conditions vary enormously. I need not dwell on that point. All hon. Members have taken part in elections and probably have seen elections in other constituencies. They have seen how the rooms in which counting is done vary. In some places, it is hard to get the right staff to help in these matters. In spite of that, I can see that the position is looked into. We cannot all beat Salford. Salford has an outstanding reputation and tradition and is determined to be first in the field.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: My count took nearly two and a half hours longer on this occasion than it did on the previous occasion, though there were very few extra votes. When I made representations to the returning officer he said that the Government did not allow them sufficient money to have the correct


number of counters. If my hon. Friend could deal with that matter, I should be much obliged. There was much feeling in my constituency about the time the count took. Everybody outside thought that there was a recount and a further recount. In fact, it was just the count taking place. It lasted an intolerable time.

Mr. de Freitas: I should not like offhand to deal with a matter concerning a particular constituency, but, of course, I will look into it and write to my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Daines: I made inquiries and found that the returning officer is allowed a certain sum. He can spend up to that sum, but if he goes over that sum then he has to meet the difference. Is that the position? It seems to me that it is the excessive caution of so many of our returning officers, rather than the question of the amount, which is to blame.

Mr. de Freitas: That, I understand, is the position, but I will not, off-hand and without considering the matter with the representatives of the registration officers, condemn any particular one. It would not be right to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley raised a number of points, and made a plea, which I think was welcomed, that we should not make regulations that would cause an increase in form-filling. He stressed his own experience in this matter and referred to the fact that Service men themselves were often reluctant to register. My hon. Friend asked for a settling down period, because there have been so many changes. There might well be something in that, and that point also will be considered. The point about a list of the reasons why absent voters certificates were given and a list of the people who signed them is a very wide and important matter indeed, but, since we have only recently gone into this question of extending the matter of the absent voters' vote, I think it is right that we should examine that point as well.
The hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) wanted clearer instructions, and made the very sensible plea for the use of colour in making it easy for absent voters to complete these forms. That, too, will be

considered. The hon. Member who began the Debate, in fact, pointed out that the Home Office is trying at every stage and every level to simplify the wording of these forms. As I said, my right hon. Friend has already given instructions for one form to be simplified, and he will take this matter into consideration too. As to the deliberate spoiling of votes, my experience, like that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, is that I cannot recall a case in which a single one was deliberately spoiled in my constituency, but I will have that matter investigated.
The conference to which I have referred is composed of representatives of the Departments concerned, the registration officers and the agents of the three parties, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and it is, I believe—and I say this with all respect to hon. Members—better qualified to deal with matters such as these than are committees which include hon. Members of this House. After all, at an election, is not a candidate more engaged in putting over himself and his policy, leaving the mechanics of the election to people like the agents and the registration and returning officers? I believe that it is the registration officers and the agents, whether in the constituencies or the central offices, who have the best experience of these matters.
Of course, having said that, I cannot end without saying that my right hon. Friend welcomes comments and suggestions from hon. Members, whether in Questions or in Debates like this, and also suggestions both from hon. Members and candidates in letters either to himself or to me. I think we have gained from that course in the past. I should say, in conclusion, that it must not be thought by people outside, or even by hon. Members of this House, that there is any evidence of general dissatisfaction with the electoral law and procedure today. What evidence we have is quite to the contrary.

Mr. R. V. Grimston: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask him one question? I suppose that this committee to which he referred will consider points which may or may not require legislation, and I assume that they are not precluded from considering any point which might require legislation.

Mr. de Freitas: I am sorry. I should have made that quite clear. Some of the points they consider do require legislation but not all, and in the latter case the Home Secretary makes changes in the regulations as they advise.

Mr. Keeling: I should like to ask one question about the committee. Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that either the whole committee or a subcommittee of it will visit units in the Services and try to find out how it is that even now on the new register less than half the Service people have registered? Secondly, will he give an assurance that the report of this committee will be published?

Mr. de Freitas: As to the first point, I am afraid that I cannot give such an assurance. After all, the hon. Member will appreciate that it is very hard for me, in the absence of the three Service Minsters and the Minister of Defence, to give an assurance that the committee will go into their units. I can certainly give an assurance that the suggestion will be taken up with them. As to the point about publication; no, I will not give that assurance. I think all interests would be best served if the Home Secretary regarded it rather more as an informal committee than as a formal one publishing a report.

Mr. Daines: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that the whole of the subject will be treated as an emergency matter. A General Election may come at any time, and we ought to have an assurance that the matter will be treated in an immediate and urgent basis.

Mr. Wigg: In view of innuendoes which were made from the other side about my constituency, will my hon. Friend state that it is the case that there are two widely divergent views as to the interpretation of the use of motor cars for election purposes? Will he look at this problem so that before the next General Election the parties will know exactly where they stand? There were differing practices because of differing interpretations.

Mr. de Freitas: Answering the last question first, I think it is extremely likely—but I cannot assure my hon. Friend—that the subject of motor cars will be discussed. As to the first point put to me,

I said "in a matter of weeks" or "within a month."

Mr. Wigg: I asked a question of fact. When the Clause was before the House, was not the general view held in all quarters of the House that a candidate's party was limited to the use of one motor car for so many electors, according to whether it was a borough or a county division? Then as the election wore on, the view was that the party was limited to the use of the cars which were registered, but on the other hand the view became held that in addition, other cars could be used provided that they were only conveying relatives. By polling day there were at least two different doctrines. Is that not so?

Mr. de Freitas: In view of the definite allegations about certain things stated to have happened in my hon. Friend's constituency, I think it would be quite wrong for me to go into this at all.

Mr. Channon: Can the hon. Gentleman say a word about the sickness vote. There was considerable misunderstanding and even confusion in my constituency about the date when the list would close. Many people thought it would have been better to have the date nearer election time, particularly in winter when many people may be down with 'flu and unable to go to vote. The date was fixed at 10th February, 13 days before the General Election. In some quarters it was thought that the closing date was 3rd February, but afterwards that was found to be untrue. This affected people of all parties. Something should be done to move the date forward.

Mr. de Freitas: At present the returning officer has the discretion to fix what date he chooses. This seems to me unsatisfactory because it may expose him to charges of favouritism, and it is likely that we will fix a definite date, probably the last day for nominations.

Mr. Channon: A little nearer polling time?

Mr. de Freitas: Yes.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Can my hon. Friend say how long the committee will be, and whether the report will be in writing and available to hon. Members?

Mr. de Freitas: I have already answered that. I said that the report will not be published. The conference have already had a meeting since the General Election, and there will be another one within a matter of weeks.

Mr. Wigg: I think that my hon. Friend has been less than fair to me. Will he say whether there are not now two quite distinct views about the law relating to the use of motor cars and whether he is satisfied with the interpretation which the House accepted generally when the Bill was being debated is not now altered?

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (AMATEUR BUILDING)

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Henry Usborne: In the remaining quarter of an 'hour I want to draw the attention of the House to the problem of housing. Before I start my speech, I want to make a couple of points by way of introduction. The first is this: it is now almost exactly an hour ago since I started my speech. I then sat down because, under arrangement with the then occupant of the Chair and under his direction, it was understood between us that the old Debate would first be finished off, that perhaps the Minister would reply and then I might be lucky enough to catch his eye. Now, I have been sitting here ever since because I then believed that there would be adequate time to ventilate the subject about which I want to talk. What I want to talk about is not something that I can deal with adequately in a quarter of an hour. It requires more time than that. Nevertheless I must do my best in the very little time which is now unfortunately available.
The second point is that it was only at the last moment, in fact at lunch today, that I decided that this matter ought to be raised. It so happened that at lunch I was seated next to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Moeran). We discussed housing and, as we conversed, we both came to the conclusion, almost simultaneously, that we had stumbled on an aspect of this problem which was exciting and, perhaps, also important. It was certainly an aspect that was very novel indeed. Therefore, at the last moment, realising that there

might be a chance of discussing it in the House, we decided we would come here and try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. At such a late moment it was not easy to give the Department adequate warning or any clear indication of the kind of things we were going to discuss. However, particularly in regard to the rather novel things we were going to say, I felt that, in a sense, it was not a great disadvantage. I was not very anxious to compel a Member of the Government to come and reply, at short notice, to a Debate in which, almost certainly, he would be obliged to point out some of the difficulties of which we were already vividly aware.
We know nearly all the difficulties in housing today, but unfortunately we do not seem to know enough about methods of overcoming them. Late last night—too late to be recorded in today's OFFICIAL REPORT—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Yates) raised on the Adjournment the problem of housing as it affected Birmingham. As a Member who also sits for a Birmingham constituency, I should like to recapitulate briefly some of the salient points.
It is generally agreed in Birmingham that 100,000 houses are urgently required. We also know that at present no more than about 1,500 houses are being built each year—hardly enough to cater for normal wastage. In other words, under the present programme no dent is being made at all in the real problem of how to get 100,000 new houses built in Birmingham in the shortest possible time. The problem is exacerbated because the only bottleneck in Birmingham is the shortage of skilled labour able to build houses. It is from that point of departure that I now am going to make a few observations to the House.
I believe that in Birmingham there is, as there must also be in many other parts of the world, a large reservoir of untapped labour. I said advisedly "untapped" labour and not "skilled" labour. I believe that almost any man of the type who lives and works in Birmingham is perfectly capable in certain circumstances of building his own house. I do not believe that is impossible. I think that if certain things were provided for them, most people, or at any rate a great number of people, in


Birmingham who definitely need houses could contrive to get them built with the labour of their own hands and the help of friends which they could undoubtedly rope in. The problem, therefore, is how to make use of the willing labour, the individuals who want to build houses while admitting that the skilled professional labour is in short supply.
This is where I want to propose a method by which private enterprise can be developed. When I refer here to private enterprise, I am not thinking in the traditional terms of using existing incorporated building firms or companies for building houses in Birmingham. Indeed, they are already being used, and up to the hilt. What I want to do is to provide a means by which a private individual who is not a professional builder can use his enterprise to build himself a home. I believe that in certain circumstances this can be done. The circumstances in which it can be done are circumstances which I would advocate being parallel with and complementary to all that is now being done. Nothing that I propose is intended in any way to conflict with the existing programme. It is a supplementary additional idea which might be very useful.
I am thinking in terms of the way people—particularly children and even "grown-up children"—build for themselves complicated things, such as exquisite model aeroplanes and the like. This happens to be one of my own hobbies. I know that, given ad equate instructions, adequate sets of raw materials and the will to do so, almost any enterprising and intelligent person who knows how to use his hands can build the most beautiful mechanisms. I am wondering whether it is not possible for the authorities to provide the materials out of which a house could be built.
There are two categories of material which are required. First, there are the site and the foundations, and those, of course, must be provided by the authorities themselves. The concrete must be ready and the plumbing and the electric points must be provided. But given the basis of the operation, the site, I believe it is possible for almost any enterprising person with the assistance of one or two friends to put a house together and make a home for himself, provided

all the materials are designed for a standard type house which had been worked out in detail and for which plans, blue-prints and instructions had been provided.
The circumstances in which that can be done are important. What is necessary is this. A separate and entirely different department of the Ministry should be set up at a distance from Whitehall, and a group of persons should be employed to work out the design of one or two, or perhaps at most three, small, simple, cheap and easily constructed homes. They should work this out in the greatest detail so that primarily they can be constructed out of materials which appear to be available now and which are likely to continue to be available in the future. These houses should be constructed out of parts which can mainly be made in the factories and which can then be sent to site suitably labelled so that almost any person could put those parts together and make them into a home.
There are two great advantages here. The first is that if the authorities were to lay down the broad outline drawing for the type of house they would regard as suitable, they should then hand the general arrangement, the outline drawing as it were, to the specialised department who would be told, "Make three variants of that kind of house on paper, work out precisely, in detail, every nut and bolt, every window frame and every item that will be required to turn it into a house, and see whether these things can be obtained from the smaller factories in this country which are available for extra work."
One would say straight away that they should not try to obtain materials in very large quantities from a few very big firms, for those firms are probably already fully occupied. Broadly, they should try to obtain the materials in penny parcels from the smaller firms and then should get the materials, as required, collected in a few depôts suitably situated around the country. The department of the Ministry whose job it would be to break down the general arrangement drawing into detailed construction plans would be responsible for obtaining from the various industrial firms up and down the country the raw materials and the parts which are required and of collecting them into the depôts. They


would also be responsible for seeing that all these parts, all the parts of the jigsaw puzzle which make up a house, could be suitably boxed. I do not necessarily mean that they would all be put into one box, but possibly on one lorry and at the right moment delivered to the site and handed over to the men who wanted to buy them. The individual would buy the parts and set about making his own house.
I have only two or three minutes left and there are two further points I wish to make. I think that if this system could be developed, then, for example taking the sites in Birmingham where traditional building is going ahead apparently as fast as possible, a few selected sites could be made available for this special house, the home builders' house—types A, B or C. Then an individual who wished to do so could buy the site from the corporation at a very cheap price on the understanding that the lease of the house he ultimately builds should revert to the corporation in so many years—10, 15 or 25 years. He could be helped in finance through the corporation or the municipal bank and he would then be able to buy the materials which go to make up a house, possibly on deferred terms.
Lastly, the corporation should then see to it that there is a technical school, a night school or something of that nature in Birmingham where the individual who is interested in the possibility of buying the parts and building his own home

could study the art of putting the thing together, where a prototype of the house could be continually erected, moved and pulled to pieces and examined in the process of construction. Thus an individual who wanted to try to build a house in this way—because the bottleneck in Birmingham is shortage of labour—could study the "know-how" at this school to see how the job is done. Possibly, before attempting to build his own house he could find someone else in Birmingham, possibly a little more experienced, who was building a similar house for himself, and could go for week ends and volunteer to help. He would be helping the other man and at the same time gaining experience to start the venture himself.
I have no further time and I must end with this comment. As I explained, I entered this Debate at short notice. The problem I wanted to cover is very big have not worked out all the details and, of course, I do not know all the answers, but I believe that something like this could provide at least a part of the answer to what is perhaps the most appalling problem which faces the constituents of Yardley at this moment.

The Question having been proposed at Four o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Four o'Clock.